House of Commons
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 9 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, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
1. What his policy is on offshoring of services which have been contracted out by the Government.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Our policy on offshoring is unchanged from that pursued by the previous Government. Our procurement policy is to award contracts on the basis of value for money, which means the optimum combination of costs and quality.
Mrs Glindon
Cabinet Office document ISSC2 states that back-office jobs and functions in the Departments for Work and Pensions and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be privatised and offshored in a joint venture with the Government and Steria UK. Which functions and jobs will be offshored and to where? Does he agree that any threat to offshore jobs, particularly those handling sensitive personal data, should be given urgent attention by the Government?
Mr Maude
Concerns about data security are taken very seriously, and certainly inform our approach to offshoring. But as I say, the approach that we take to offshoring is exactly the same as that followed by the previous Government. The hon. Lady may know that the shared business services joint venture, also with Steria, which was set up by the last Government, has some elements that are offshored, and the same will be the case with this joint venture.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Will my right hon. Friend encourage contractors to recognise that where there is a very cost-effective office in a rural community providing shared services, such as the DEFRA office in Alnwick, retaining jobs there makes sense?
Mr Maude
I know my right hon. Friend’s concern about that office and I know that Steria and the management of the shared services centre will be looking at that very carefully. They will want to make sure that the service is provided at an improved quality—the quality has not been optimal up to now—and at a much lower cost. There will be many different ways of doing that, but I know that they will want to look very carefully at the service provided by their colleagues at Alnwick.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
2. What steps he is taking to improve commercial skills in the civil service.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
6. What steps he is taking to improve commercial skills in the civil service.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to improve commercial skills in the civil service.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
9. What steps he is taking to improve commercial skills in the civil service.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The Government have been working for the past three years to drive up the level of commercial skills across central Government. There is still a long way to go, given the shortcomings of where we started. The need to press ahead with redoubled speed was highlighted in our recent cross-Government review of contracts. We are creating the Crown Commercial Service, which will come online later this year.
David Rutley
I welcome the important steps that my right hon. Friend is taking to improve these skills. I believe that more needs to be done to continue to upgrade skills in commercial areas, particularly relating to project management and commissioning. Is he satisfied that sufficient civil servants will be going through the new commissioning agency really to make a difference to the skills base in Whitehall and beyond?
Mr Maude
I recently attended the one-year-on event of the new Commissioning Academy, which we set up a year ago. It has achieved a good deal. During the next 18 months, we want 1,500 senior public sector commissioners to have participated in the academy. It is part of a wider programme to improve commercial skills not only in Whitehall but right across the public sector.
Mark Menzies
What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the work of the Crown representatives in driving value for money for taxpayers through procurement reform?
Mr Maude
Our Crown representatives, who come predominantly from the private sector with a huge amount of commercial experience, have helped us to generate significant efficiencies. We buy better if we act as a single customer in Government, to maximise our buying power and improve our performance as a customer. We are renegotiating contracts with a number of suppliers, and by centrally renegotiating we have saved the taxpayer £800 million in each of the financial years during this Parliament.
Andrew Selous
When does my right hon. Friend expect that all those in charge of major Government IT contracts will have gone through the programme at Oxford Said business school, and is he satisfied that that is the very best place to send these people?
Mr Maude
I am absolutely satisfied with the Major Projects Leadership Academy, which was set up to address what was identified by everybody as a major deficiency in Government and is now approaching its second anniversary. There is a requirement for all major project leaders to be alumni of the academy by the end of 2015, and all of them will have at least started training by the end of the current year. We started with a real deficiency of skills and experience, but we are building those with civil servants, which has been very much welcomed.
David Mowat
Just before Christmas, the cross-Government review of major projects identified a number of serious weaknesses in the way contracts with Serco and G4S had been administered. Will the Minister confirm that the review’s conclusions will be implemented in full? Will he also consider requiring senior civil servants to spend three years in a commercial environment before becoming permanent secretaries?
Mr Maude
I can confirm that we have accepted the recommendations, and Departments are producing their plans for implementing them imminently. With regard to the requirement for senior civil servants to get commercial and operational experience, we have already set out that someone looking to be appointed as permanent secretary of a delivery Department must be able to show at least two years of commercial or operational experience before being considered.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I push the Minister on that? Is it not a bit wishy-washy to refer to “commercial” skills? I am co-chair of the all-party management group. What we want across the civil service are pure management skills. Moreover, we want Ministers with some ability to manage a Department. The fact is that most of the Ministers who appeared before me when I chaired a Select Committee could not manage the proverbial in a brewery.
Mr Maude
The hon. Gentleman may have more experience of the latter activity than I do, but the truth is that Ministers are not actually required to manage Departments; that responsibility sits very clearly with the civil service leadership. I think that they would be the first to accept that he makes a valid point. We have a deficiency in leadership and management skills as well as in commercial skills, and we need to address that. Concerns about the quality of the leadership and management of change come up consistently in the civil service staff survey, and as great organisations are always changing, we need to rectify that deficiency.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
Of course we agree that we want greater commercial skills, and indeed management skills, in the civil service, but with the fiasco over the west coast main line, botched contracts over rural broadband roll-out and the lamentable implementation of the universal credit, with the Minister squabbling publicly with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when will Ministers, rather than blaming officials, take some responsibility for their own shambles?
Mr Maude
On that last point, the hon. Gentleman will know that it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who spotted that things were not right with the implementation of the universal credit and commissioned the review that disclosed the problems to the Department for the first time, as the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee report makes absolutely clear. Far from evading responsibility, it was my right hon. Friend who spotted the problems and set to work solving them.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the widespread appreciation of his personal commitment to improving skills in the civil service, which is truly commendable? Will he also take this opportunity to welcome the fact that the Public Administration Committee has just announced a new inquiry into skills in the civil service, and will he encourage people to send us as much evidence as possible?
Mr Maude
I absolutely welcome the inquiry that my hon. Friend is leading and will certainly encourage a lot of evidence to be given. We have to be open about the problems that exist. Otherwise, there is no chance whatsoever of solving them. The first stage in finding solutions is being honest about the problems.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
3. What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
10. What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
We are strong believers in the value of high-quality youth services. We will shortly publish a report on what local authorities are doing to comply with their statutory duty, along with our plans to support those who want to deliver high-quality services in an innovative way.
Julie Hilling
As the Minister says, local authorities have a duty to secure sufficient educational leisure-time activity for the improvement of well-being and the personal and social development of young people, but the average cut to youth services has been 27%, with some local authorities cutting their youth service budgets completely. What measures is he taking to ensure that local authorities meet their statutory responsibilities, and how is he measuring the impact of the cuts on the well-being of young people?
Mr Hurd
The statutory duty exists. We are concerned about the vulnerability of youth services, as is the hon. Lady. It is a mixed picture: boroughs such as the London borough of Hillingdon in my constituency, for example, are investing more in youth services now because they fixed the roof when the sun was shining, but there are cuts. We are finding out an accurate picture of what is happening, because we did not have one, and we will shortly publish the offer we can make to local authorities that want to commission services in an innovative way.
Sarah Champion
Following on from that last answer, does the Minister agree that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to provide a fair start to all young people in Rotherham, given the £970,000 cuts to the youth service with which the council is now forced to deal?
Mr Hurd
I fully accept that there are very challenging pressures on local authorities as a result of the cuts. Each of them is dealing with the cuts in different ways. What we sitting in the centre can do is map what is happening, help local authorities by signposting other sources of funding, help them to look at examples of good innovative practice around the country and help them if they are really committed to commissioning high-quality services for young people. We know the value of those services, and we are absolutely committed to them.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will the Minister be mindful of the Youth Commission report on the role of youth workers in schools, which I chaired? It highlighted the value of qualified and empathetic youth workers supporting young people in school settings on healthy living and engagement issues. Will he urge colleagues in the Department for Education to make sure that Ofsted take that into account in their inspections?
Mr Hurd
I am certainly very happy to raise that with colleagues in the Department for Education. Over the years, I have developed a deep admiration for the work of youth workers, who can have an extraordinary impact on young people. I will therefore raise that point with other Departments.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
These questions tend to ignore the enormous amount of voluntary work already done by youth organisations in our constituencies—people helping young homelessness projects, street pastors, sea cadets, air cadets, Army cadets, scouts and guides. Huge numbers of youth organisations are run or assisted by adult volunteers, and they do not need the intervention of the state to thrive and prosper.
Mr Hurd
I fully agree with my right hon. Friend’s points. A huge number of organisations seek to help and develop young people. Part of the challenge for us is to try to connect them with local authorities, which have a statutory duty, to see whether services at local level can be joined up more effectively for the benefit of young people in the area.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Will the Minister hold discussions with the relevant Ministers in the devolved legislatures to ensure that best practice in youth service provision right across the United Kingdom is replicated to the benefit of young people throughout the UK?
Mr Hurd
Such provision is a devolved matter, but we are having active conversations with devolved Administrations, specifically about the opportunity to develop the National Citizen Service in other areas. I am absolutely delighted that we have been able to run very successful pilots in Northern Ireland, and we are in active conversations with other Administrations to follow that lead.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the remarkable start that the National Citizen Service has made and on all that is happening. May I urge him to meet the Marine Society to talk about what sea cadets and other parts of its very successful existing portfolio can deliver for it?
Mr Hurd
I would be delighted to have such a conversation. We have had very constructive conversations so far with the cadets about links that could be made with the National Citizen Service. As we look to expand it very ambitiously, we are obviously open to conversations with any organisations that can help.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Minister has previously said that youth services are too easy a target for cuts, and he was right. In fact, his Government have squeezed councils so hard that they have presided over £300 million- worth of cuts to youth services, but at the same time they have squandered £241 million on free school places in areas where they are not needed. Ministers’ pet projects or young people—will he tell the House which he thinks are more important?
Mr Hurd
The hon. Lady totally ignores the reason why there are cuts in the system, which is to get control of the deficit that we inherited. We passionately believe in the value of youth services for young people. That is why we have developed the National Citizen Service, which has an evidence base to support the value that it gives to young people. As I have said, we are now prepared to work with local authorities to see how they can commission, in an innovative way, really effective youth services in their area.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
4. What progress he has made on developing social finance.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
Britain is proud to lead the world in developing the emerging market of social investment. Big Society Capital has already committed £140 million, and the number of social impact bonds has risen sharply. Grants are flowing to help social entrepreneurs to become more investment-ready, and a new tax relief will go live in April.
Mr Allen
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Having properly evidenced early-intervention programmes is the biggest known deficit reduction programme. In order for such programmes to start up, we need effective social finance. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what more his Department and, above all, Big Society Capital can do to maximise that possibility?
Mr Hurd
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his leadership in setting up the Early Intervention Foundation and on the work that it published today on domestic violence. He is entirely right that part of the value of social investment is its ability to create space to finance early intervention. That is where a lot of the social impact bonds that I mentioned are focused. I know from my conversations with Big Society Capital that it is very interested in engaging with What Works centres, including the Early Intervention Foundation. Following the hon. Gentleman’s question, I will write to the chief executive, asking him to update me on his engagement with the Early Intervention Foundation and other What Works centres.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the social impact of the delivery of public services should be taken account of during the procurement process, as well as the purely economic impact?
Mr Hurd
Yes, the Government agree with that. That is why we put the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 on the statute book. Later this month, we will publish a one-year-on review of that Act, because it matters to us. We are keen for commissioners—the people who spend public money—to think intelligently about how money can be stretched as far as possible.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
5. What assessment he has made of the efficacy of privatised shared services across central Government Departments.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The Government’s first priority is to drive down costs for the taxpayer and cut the massive budget deficit that we inherited. There has been cross-party agreement on the need for shared services for the past decade, but very little had been achieved until over the past 12 months. That is why I am pleased that last year we launched a joint venture with Steria that will save taxpayers at least £400 million and create a new, dynamic UK business services company.
Jessica Morden
The announcement in December that the Ministry of Justice’s shared service centre in Newport could be privatised has caused huge fears and uncertainty among the work force, who fear that their jobs will be outsourced and potentially offshored, which could happen under this model. Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to onshoring jobs last week, will the Cabinet Office reassure the workers in Newport that the plans will be shelved?
Mr Maude
We will certainly not shelve any options that could bring improved services and cut the cost to the taxpayer. I am aware of the uncertainty. That will be resolved as soon as possible so that people know where the future lies. To give a bit of reassurance, I remind the hon. Lady that the first shared service centre in Swansea, which has been fully outsourced rather than being a joint venture, is taking on more staff.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
8. What plans he has for the National Citizen Service in 2014.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)
A new, independent organisation called the NCS Trust has been established to lead the programme in 2014. We are delighted that more than 70,000 young people have had this hugely positive experience since 2011. The trust will build on that success. In 2014, more young people than ever will have the opportunity to take part in the National Citizen Service.
Mark Pawsey
In September last year, I joined 40 young people on Big Challenge Sunday. Guided by the park ranger, Trevor Hoyte, they painted fences and picked litter in Rugby’s Caldecott park. That was appreciated by local people and the young people gained valuable life skills. Should not Members from across the House encourage more people to take part in the National Citizen Service?
Mr Hurd
Yes, we should. I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the National Citizen Service. The NCS has a twin value: it gives young people the chance to do something in their community and, as he said, it helps them to develop confidence and skills that will make them more employable. That is why we are so ambitious for it and why there is cross-party support for it, led by the Leader of the Opposition.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
My responsibilities are for the public sector Efficiency and Reform Group, civil service issues, the industrial relations strategy in the public sector, Government transparency, civil contingency, civil society and cyber-security. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is still rather a lot of noise in the House. What is required is an air of respectful expectation for Karen Lumley.
Karen Lumley
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend the Minister share my concern at the reports that a trade union is threatening to use so-called leverage tactics against our NHS staff? Can he confirm that those allegations fall within the scope of our review of trade union activities?
Mr Maude
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns at those suggestions. It is appalling that hard-working staff in our NHS should be subjected to the threat of such bullying and intimidation. I can confirm that the review that we are establishing will be fully empowered to investigate those suggestions.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In light of the newly released Cabinet papers about the 1984 miners’ strike, and given the continued sense of injustice that prevails across the coalfields, will the Minister agree to publish all the documents and the communication between the then Government and the police at the time of the strike; to a full investigation into the events surrounding Orgreave ahead of the 30th anniversary; and to make a formal apology for the actions of the then Government? Does he agree that it is only through full transparency and reconciliation that we will finally see justice for the coalfields?
Mr Maude
The documents will be released in the usual way under the law that was passed under the last Government. I was representing a coal mining constituency during the miners’ strike and saw at first hand the violence, intimidation and divided communities in a dispute that took place without a proper national ballot being held. The hon. Gentleman asks for an apology—no.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
T5. As well as reversing the previous Labour council’s cuts to youth services and taking trade union money and putting it into apprenticeships, North Lincolnshire’s Conservative council has adopted dynamic purchasing systems such as e-tendering to support local businesses. Are the Government evaluating the benefit of such systems to the wider public sector? If so, will the Minister look at the North Lincolnshire examples?
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
T2. Sunderland has a great record on technology start-ups, but these small companies still find it difficult to compete and bid for Government work. What more can the Minister do across Government to support this growing industry in the north-east?
Mr Maude
We can do more, and we are already doing much more than was previously the case. The amount of Government business going to small businesses, both directly and indirectly, has risen to nearly 20%. I am afraid that the last Government were not even measuring how much went to smaller businesses. There is much more that we can do. We have streamlined the procurement processes, which previously seemed almost deliberately to exclude small businesses from being able to bid. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
The Minister has ploughed on, to his credit, but it has been difficult for him to be heard. His words should be heard, and I hope that there will be some courtesy from Members.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
T6. I welcome the Minister’s offering IT procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises through the G-Cloud. Is he aware of a local constituency company called The Bunker secure hostings, which offers data for SMEs to access G-Gloud?
Mr Maude
I am glad that G-Cloud, which we set up, now has 800 suppliers on it, two thirds of which are SMEs, and that an increasing amount of business is being awarded through it. I hope that the business in my hon. Friend’s constituency will be successful in winning business through that innovative way of enabling the purchase of IT services.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/ Co-op)
T3. Last week, the Information Commissioner said that there were “serious shortcomings” in the Cabinet Office’s handling of freedom of information requests and called the Department’s poor performance “particularly disappointing”. Why is the Minister setting such a bad example, given that his Department is supposed to lead on openness and transparency across Government?
Mr Maude
It will be clear to the hon. Lady that the Cabinet Office deals with some of the most complex and difficult freedom of information requests, a lot of them involving previous Government papers, for which a long consultation process has to be entered into before any decision can be made. The situation will be better in some quarters than others, but in general our record is good.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
T8. Given that a fifth of Government procurement spend now goes to SMEs, will the Minister redouble his efforts so that these engines of growth further boost our long-term economic plan?
Mr Maude
We have made massive progress. Under the previous Government there was no attempt even to measure how much business was going to SMEs, but we are now measuring that and improving it. We have cut out a lot of the bureaucratic nonsense that often prevented small businesses from even being able to bid for business, let alone win it. The result of that, as my hon. Friend says, is that nearly one fifth of Government business goes to SMEs one way or another. It is our ambition for that to rise to 25%, and I am optimistic we can achieve that.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 29 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Chloe Smith
Figures now show that the UK economy is growing at its fastest rate since 2007, which is further proof that our plan is working. But there is a choice: stick with it, or abandon a plan that is delivering a better economic future and jobs for my constituents in Norwich North. Does the Prime Minister agree that the long-term decisions we are taking matter most for the future of Britain and our children? After all, who is an economic plan for if not the next generation?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that should be the test of the decisions we are taking—will they secure a better future, more stability and more peace of mind for our children and grandchildren? Last week we saw the biggest number of new jobs in a quarter since records began, and this week we see the fastest growth in our economy for six years. There should be absolutely no complacency. The job is nowhere near complete, but if we stick to our long-term economic plan we can see our country rise and our people rise too.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
All sides of the House will welcome the Government’s significant change of heart on the issue of Syrian refugees, which I raised with the Prime Minister last week, and we look forward to the Home Secretary’s statement. Now that the decision has apparently been taken, will he reassure the House that he will act with the utmost urgency, because we are talking about the most vulnerable people in refugee camps who need help now?
The Prime Minister
What I can assure the right hon. Gentleman is that we will act with the greatest urgency, because when it comes to Syria, we have acted with the greatest urgency throughout. We have made available £600 million, which makes us the second largest humanitarian donor. We have provided food for 188,000 people, clean water for almost a million, and medical consultations for almost a quarter of a million. As the Home Secretary will make clear, we will be coming forward with a scheme to help the most needy people in those refugee camps and offer them a home in our country. We want to make sure that we particularly help those who have been victims of sexual violence—a cause that the Foreign Secretary has rightly, on behalf of the whole country, championed across the world.
Edward Miliband
I welcome the Government’s decision to accept Syrian refugees; it is a very important cause.
Let me turn to another subject. Can I ask the Prime Minister who, just before the election, said that
“showing that we’re all in this together…means showing that the rich will pay their share which is why…the 50p tax rate will have to stay”? [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
Under this Government the richest will pay more in income tax in every year than any year when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. That is the truth. I want the richest to pay more in tax, and under this Government they are, because we are creating jobs and growth, and we are encouraging investment. What we have heard from Labour Members over the past 48 hours is that they want to attack that growth and attack those jobs; they want to attack those businesses. We now have in Britain an anti-business, anti-growth, anti-jobs party.
Edward Miliband
No, Mr Speaker; what we have is a policy with the overwhelming support of the most important people of all—the people of Britain. That is what the 50p rate is. The Prime Minister is obviously rather coy in telling us who said those words. Of course, it was him, in 2009, just before the election. He said that the 50p tax rate was a symbol of us all being in it together, and now it has gone. Can he now tell us whether he rules out cutting the top rate further to 40p?
The Prime Minister
The Chancellor set out yesterday exactly what our priorities are. We want to cut taxes for the lowest paid and for middle income people. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the Chancellor, because like the rest of the Labour party, he was not here yesterday—they left the shadow Chancellor all on his own.
While we are in the business of who has said interesting things in recent days—[Interruption.] Let me ask him this—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Robertson: calm yourself, man. The lion must get back in its den.
The Prime Minister
There is plenty more. While we are on the subject of interesting quotes, who in the last 48 hours said this:
“do I think the level of public spending going into the crisis was a problem for Britain? No, I don’t, nor our deficit, nor our national debt”?
In fact, he even said that in
“in some areas we’d spend more”.
That was the shadow Chancellor. We were talking earlier about our children. When our children in future turn to the dictionary and look up the definition of denial, it will be right there: Balls, Ed.
Edward Miliband
It is hard to remember now, but a long time ago I asked a question. The Prime Minister failed to answer it, so let us try him again and give him another go. Does he rule out—[Interruption.] The Chancellor should keep quiet for a second. Does the Prime Minister rule out giving another tax cut to the richest in society by cutting the top rate to 40p—
The Prime Minister
There is so much good news I cannot wait to get up and tell it. Our priority is to cut taxes for the lowest paid in our country. That is why we have taken 2 million people out of tax. Let us look at the reaction to the right hon. Gentleman’s 50p announcement. Businesses have said it would cost jobs, Labour Ministers whom he served alongside have queued up to say that it is economically illiterate, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that it would raise hardly any money. It has been an absolutely disastrous policy launch from a disastrous Labour economic team.
Edward Miliband
With every answer, the Prime Minister shows who he stands up for: a few at the top, not the ordinary families of Britain. That is the truth.
It is a very simple question. I know the Prime Minister does not love answering questions at Prime Minister’s questions, but that is the point of these occasions. We are asking him a very simple question. We have a clear position. We would reverse the millionaires’ tax cut and put the top rate of tax back to 50p. I am asking him a very simple question. Does he rule out reducing the top rate to 40p—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
The simple answer is that I have told him our priority: tax cuts for low earners, tax cuts for middle earners, freezing the council tax, freezing the fuel duty and helping people in our country. What have we seen from him so far this year? We have seen a banking policy that the Governor of the Bank of England says would increase risk to the banking system, an employment policy that the CBI said would cost jobs, and a tax policy that business leaders said would be a risk to our recovery. There is a crisis in our country— a crisis of economic credibility for the Labour party.
Edward Miliband
The whole country will have heard; he had three opportunities to answer and he could not give us a straight answer to the question. This is a country where, after four years of this Government, people are worse off. This is a Prime Minister who has already given those at the top, millionaires, a £100,000 tax cut, and he wants to give them another one. He can only govern for the few; he can never govern for the many.
The Prime Minister
I will tell you who we are governing for: the 1.3 million people who got jobs under this Government; the 400,000 new businesses under this Government; the 2 million people we have taken out of tax under this Government; the people on the minimum wage who have seen their tax bills come down by two thirds under this Government. That is who we are governing for. The fact is we have more factories producing more goods, more people taking home a pay packet and more security for hard-working families. Now we can see the risks. Labour—a risk to jobs, a risk to the recovery and a risk to the future of Britain’s security.
Mr Jeremy Browne (Taunton Deane) (LD)
The severe flooding on the Somerset Levels is causing acute distress to the people who live in that area. Will the Prime Minister give a commitment today both to take immediate action to try to clear the flood water from the Somerset levels as soon as possible, and to put in place a long-term plan to try to make sure that this does not happen again?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend both those assurances. Cobra will be meeting again this afternoon to explore what more we can do to help the villagers in the Somerset Levels. The current situation is not acceptable. I can tell him that it is not currently safe to dredge in the Levels, but I can confirm that dredging will start as soon as it is practical, as soon as the waters have started to come down. The Environment Agency is pumping as much water as is possible given the capacity of the rivers around the Levels, but I have ordered that further high-volume pumps from the Department for Communities and Local Government’s national reserve will be made available to increase the volume of the pumping operation as soon as there is capacity in the rivers to support that. We are urgently exploring what further help the Government can give to local residents to move around, and I rule nothing out in the days ahead to get this problem sorted.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
Q2. Can I invite the Prime Minister to visit my constituency and spend a day working with a rogue employment agency on a zero-hours contract and being paid sometimes less than the minimum wage, so that he can get an insight into the world of work for many people on his watch?
The Prime Minister
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will be visiting his constituency in the next 16 months. I absolutely agree with him that it is unacceptable when people pay below the minimum wage. We want to see more enforcement and action to make sure that that does not happen. It is not acceptable, we have a minimum wage for a good reason and I want to see it properly enforced.
Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Is it not the case that we have learned over successive years during the past two or three decades that a responsible economic policy to maximise tax yields is one that sets the tax rates at the rates that will yield the most? Tax rates set too high are the politics of envy and actually raise less in taxes.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes a sensible point. The point of setting tax rates is to raise revenue, not to make a political point. What the Opposition want to do is make a political point because they believe in the politics of envy, not in raising money for public services. In the end the truth is this: the top 1% of taxpayers in our country are now paying 30% of the total income tax take. As I said, the richest taxpayers are actually going to be paying more in every year of this Government than when those two on the Opposition Front Bench sat in the Treasury and made such a mess of our economy.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Q3. More than 300,000 people are reported to be paid less than the minimum wage. I was heartened by what the Prime Minister just said, but if that is the case and he really is committed to the minimum wage, why have there been only two employers prosecuted in the past four years and half the level of investigations?
The Prime Minister
We have seen, I think, about 700 penalties issued for not paying the minimum wage, so we are taking enforcement action, but we need to take more enforcement action. As the Chancellor has made clear, we also want the opportunity for the minimum wage to rise. As our economy recovers, it should be possible, listening to the Low Pay Commission, to restore the value of the minimum wage. We are keen to see that happen.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
Q4. I know that the Prime Minister deals in facts, and the facts are that we have more jobs in this country than ever recorded before and a growth prediction higher than anybody would have thought a year ago. Will we now consider whether the level of the minimum wage could be raised to ensure that everyone benefits from this recovery?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is extremely good news that more than 30 million people—a record number—are in work. Under this Government, the minimum wage has gone up by 10%, and our tax cut for low earners is equivalent to another 10% increase in the minimum wage, but as I have said I hope it will be possible to restore the real value of the minimum wage. We should listen and allow the Low Pay Commission to do its work—I do not want this issue to become a political football—but everyone agrees that as the economy recovers it should be possible to restore that value.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Mohammad Asghar, who lived in the UK for 40 years and has family in my constituency, has recently been convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death in Pakistan. Mr Asghar was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia in 2010 and was treated in Edinburgh, but the judges refused to take that into account. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary yesterday, but can the Prime Minister now assure me that he and his Ministers are doing everything they can to support this man and see him returned to the UK, where he can get the treatment he needs?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the hon. Lady the assurance she asks for. I, too, am deeply concerned about this death sentence passed on Mr Mohammad Asghar. As she knows, it is our long-standing policy to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, and the Pakistani authorities can be in no doubt about the seriousness with which we view these developments. Baroness Warsi spoke to the Chief Minister of the Punjab on Monday, our high commission in Islamabad continues to raise this case with the relevant authorities and Foreign Office officials are meeting Pakistan high commission officials in London today to discuss his and other cases. We take this extremely seriously and are making that clear at every level.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Q5. Portsmouth is an entrepreneurial city, delivering a drop of 25% in jobseeker’s allowance claimants over the past year. With this in mind, is the Prime Minister aware of a commercial plan put forward to the Department of Energy and Climate Change to build a number of specialist vessels designed to revolutionise and facilitate the industrialisation of the tidal energy sector? Does he agree that Portsmouth would be an excellent place to build those ships?
The Prime Minister
First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything she has done in recent weeks to highlight the importance of Portsmouth and all matters maritime, in the broadest sense of the word?
I am aware of this interesting project, and I understand there will be a meeting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shortly. It is testament to the excellent reputation of Portsmouth that there is so much interest in this commercial sector, which my hon. Friend, I and the whole Government want to see expand. The appointment of a Minister for Portsmouth, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), will make a big difference. It is good news that the youth claimant count has fallen so quickly in Portsmouth, but we must stick to the economic plan and keep delivering for Portsmouth.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Q6. Increasingly in London, young people are finding it impossible to afford to rent or buy a home, so why, under this Government, are we seeing the lowest number of housing starts since the 1920s and a housing bubble driven by wealthy overseas buyers?
The Prime Minister
On the last point, it is this Government who are introducing capital gains tax for overseas buyers—something that the Labour party did not do in 13 years. On housing, nearly 400,000 new homes have been delivered since 2010 and huge amounts of money are going into social housing. It is also this Government who are reforming the planning system, often opposed by Labour, to make all these things happen.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Q7. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the Public Administration Committee inquiry into police recorded crime statistics has uncovered serious deficiencies in the reliability of those statistics? While crime is undoubtedly falling overall, would he agree that the Home Office should work urgently with police chiefs across the country to restore the authority of these statistics, and that police chiefs should concentrate on leadership based on values and service to the public, not on discredited targets?
The Prime Minister
In fact, we have scrapped all targets apart from the target of reducing crime, which is the most important thing that the police do.
Statistics must be as robust as possible. That is why we have transferred responsibility for crime statistics to the independent Office for National Statistics and have asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to carry out an audit on the quality of crime recording in every police force. Moreover, the Home Secretary has written to all chief constables emphasising that the police must ensure that crimes are recorded accurately and honestly.
Let me also point out to my hon. Friend, and indeed to everyone, that what is notable about the recent crime statistics is that, whether we look at crimes recorded by the police or at the British crime survey, they both show that crime is falling, and has already fallen by more than 10%.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
Q8. I thank the Prime Minister for his comments about Mohammad Asghar, from Edinburgh, and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). Dozens of the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers have said that tomorrow they will support an amendment to the Immigration Bill which everyone knows to be totally incompatible with the European treaties, and 95 Tory MPs have demanded that the British Parliament should be able to veto every single European Union law, which, as the Prime Minister knows, is totally unworkable. The Prime Minister has given concession after concession to his anti-Europeans. When will he finally learn that they will never be satisfied with anything but British withdrawal from the European Union?
The Prime Minister
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that we need to correct—and we will correct, in the Immigration Bill—the fact that it has been so difficult to deport people who do not have a right to be here, and who should be facing trial overseas or deported overseas, but advance spurious arguments about the right to a family life. It is right that we are changing that. There is nothing anti-European about it. It is a very sensible step that the Government are taking, and we should pass the Immigration Bill with all speed.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Last year, the Government successfully deported the radical cleric Abu Qatada. The new Immigration Bill will crack down on illegal immigrants and will make it easier to deport foreign criminals. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that immigration law also applies to political parties and their gurus?
The Prime Minister
I can, but I am sure that I should not comment on a case that is, I believe, currently being investigated. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] No, don’t tempt me.
It is an important piece of law that we will be discussing on Thursday. We do not just need to have control at our borders; we need to ensure that people cannot come to Britain and abuse our health service, or get rights to council or other housing, or bank accounts or driving licences, if they have no right to be here. The Immigration Bill makes all those important changes and many more besides, including making it possible for us to deport people before they have appealed if they do not face a risk back in their own countries. They can then appeal from overseas. Those are all very good changes, and I hope that we will not delay too much before passing this important Bill.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Q9. People in my constituency, and throughout the country, are working harder and harder just to make ends meet, as their pay is consistently outstripped by prices. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Business Secretary, who said this week that a property-fuelled recovery was the wrong sort of recovery? May I be helpful to the Prime Minister, and inform him that the answer is on page 37 of his folder?
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the Business Secretary said that it was welcome that—in terms of our GDP growth—we have seen strong growth in manufacturing and industrial production, and not just in services. I think that is important.
If we are to ensure that we genuinely help people as our economy grows, we need to cut people’s taxes. The point is that we have cut people’s taxes because we have made difficult decisions about public spending. Every single one of those decisions has been opposed by the Labour party, but if we had listened to them, people would be in a more difficult situation in respect of the cost of living, rather than a better one.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister, on behalf of all the people of Somerset, for his announcement about the dredging of the Parrett and the Tone, where an area larger than the size of Bristol is under water and has been under water for a month. I also thank all those who are working so hard on the ground. Can I take it from the Prime Minister that he is committing the whole of the Government, including the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport and the Treasury, to working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to deal with this situation, not just for now but for future years?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. This does need to be a whole Government effort, because what I do not want to see is dredging work being held up by arguments in other Departments. We have to crack this problem. I join him in praising all of those—the emergency services, the Environment Agency, local flood wardens—who have done such valuable work, including in the Somerset Levels, but we now need to move more rapidly to issues such as dredging, which I think will help to make a long-term difference.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Q10. Mount Pleasant in my constituency is a massive development site that used to belong to Royal Mail, and therefore to all of us. It was sold for an absolute song. Is it not morally right for at least half the site to be used for local people? Independent valuers have said that the developers could build 50% genuinely affordable housing and still make a huge profit. In those circumstances and given the level of local opposition to the current plan to develop the site, would it not be outrageous for the Mayor of London to approve it? How can 12% affordable housing help with the cost of living crisis for Londoners?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to look at the site that the hon. Lady mentioned, but it is important that we allow the Mayor of London to carry out his planning responsibilities. What is important is that, when there are redevelopment opportunities, they are not endlessly blocked, because we need the development, the growth and the housing.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Holocaust memorial day took place on Monday. Would the Prime Minister join me—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is talking about Holocaust memorial day. Please let us have some respect on both sides of the House.
Graham Evans
Holocaust memorial day took place on Monday. Would the Prime Minister join me in commending the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in educating future generations about the holocaust? Would he comment on the Holocaust Commission that he formally launched this week?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Holocaust memorial day is a very important day in our annual calendar and it gave me enormous pleasure to welcome to Downing street no fewer than 50 holocaust survivors, who talked about their stories—incredibly moving and brave stories. We should thank them for the work they have done in going into school after school, college after college, to remind people of the dangers of what happened and how we should drive out hate and prejudice from every part of our national life. The Holocaust Commission has been set up—it is cross-party, with representatives from all parties—to ask the question: as, tragically, these Holocaust survivors come to the end of their lives, what should we do as a country to ensure that the memory of this never fades? Should that be a new museum, a new way of remembering, or a way of recording their memories? All those things will be looked at and I look forward to getting the commission’s report. I am sure it will have support across the House.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Q11. Despite the rhetoric, for most ordinary people the reality is that child poverty is up, food bank usage is up, payday lending is up, energy costs are up and wages are down. The Prime Minister once said that he wanted the top job because he thought he would be good at it, so when will he start to govern for all the people in all the country?
The Prime Minister
Just to correct the first thing that came out of the hon. Gentleman’s mouth, under this Government child poverty is down, on the measure that he prefers. Frankly, I am not satisfied with the measure. I think we need a better measure, but what I would say to him is that employment is up, growth is up and the number of businesses is up. Yes, we have a long way to go to restore our economic fortunes, but we have a long-term economic plan. It is delivering for Britain’s families. We have got to stick at it.
Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)
Q12. I am very pleased to report that large companies are finding Watford a very attractive place to do business. I would like to mention Wickes in particular, which is setting up its headquarters in Watford, with 200 new jobs, next week. I am very pleased about that, but I must report that at a recent meeting at Wenta, the enterprise hub in Watford which I visited last week, I saw quite a few small businesses such as AC Solutions and Pocketfit Training, and they told me that they were very frustrated by the amount of bureaucracy and red tape that is hindering their business. I would like to ask the Prime Minister what his Government intend to do about that.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says about the business environment in Watford. We have helped businesses with taxes. We are helping with red tape. We are helping them with their exports. On red tape, this is going to be the first Government in modern history who at the end of the Parliament will have less regulation in place than at the beginning. I commend the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills for its work, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy for his heroic efforts to get that legislation and those regulations on to websites so that people can tell us what we can remove. We are on target for scrapping 3,000 regulations under this Government, something of which we can be proud.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Q13. This month, Cabinet papers have revealed that the Thatcher Government sought to escalate the miners’ strike, close pits and undermine solidarity. The scars from that dispute run deep in communities such as Wigan, where some families have never recovered and where people have died while waiting for justice. Thirty years on, those communities deserve the truth and an apology. Why are they still waiting?
The Prime Minister
As the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said, we now have a system for releasing paperwork from 10, 20 and 30 years ago, and we should stick to that. I have to say that if anyone needs to make an apology for their role in the miners’ strike, it should be Arthur Scargill for the appalling way in which he led that union. While we are at it, if we want to ask about other people’s roles, there was the role of the then leader of the Labour party, who at the time never condemned the fact that they would not hold a ballot. So I think there are lessons for Labour to learn, and judging by their performance today, they have not learned any of them.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The Prime Minister is an ex officio Church Commissioner, and he will be aware of the plans to house the new Bishop of Bath and Wells outside the city. Will the Prime Minister do everything in his power to postpone the loss of the bishop’s palace in Wells, which has served perfectly well as the residence of the bishops of Bath and Wells for 800 years?
The Prime Minister
That might well be a question for the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who guides me on these important issues, but I will go away and look into the issue of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. I shall try to put the image of Blackadder out of my mind and to come up with the right answer.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
If we are to have a Parliament that reflects the people that it serves, the Prime Minister must be disappointed that one in 10 of his women MPs who came into Parliament in 2010 have indicated that they will not stand again, and that one of his most senior women Select Committee Chairs is now facing deselection. What is the Tory party’s problem with women?
The Prime Minister
I am immensely proud of the fact that, while in the last Parliament we had 19 women Conservative MPs, the figure has risen to closer to 50 in this Parliament. That is progress. Do I want us to go further and faster? Yes I do, and we will start by targeting the hon. Gentleman’s seat at the next election.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I am sure that the whole House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on sticking to their economic guns, which is producing prosperity for the kingdom, not least in Aldershot, where the number of JSA claimants has decreased by a third over the past year. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that it would be a huge and foolish mistake if the British people were to place their trust in the shadow Chancellor, who has never owned up to the last Labour Government’s responsibility for the catastrophic budget deficit and who now sticks to the unreconstructed socialist policy of tax and spend, which would ruin Britain?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes his point with characteristic strength and clarity. The fact is that the Labour party has learned no lessons from the past and says that it would do it all over again. It has tax and employment policies that would cost jobs, and businesses are now saying that it has not got a clue. I do not know whether Members have seen the film “Gravity”, but the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor remind me of two people who have stepped out into a void with absolutely no idea of what to do next. Like that great film, this is a tragedy made right here in Britain.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
In the light of the Prime Minister’s welcome recognition at last week’s PMQs that Brighton is indeed a superb and sunny place, will he come and visit the Brighton Energy Co-operative in my constituency, which demonstrates the real potential of community renewables, particularly solar power? Will he also acknowledge that if the Government’s new community energy strategy were to include the provision for energy providers to sell directly to consumers, it would have far more potential? Will he pursue that strategy instead of his evidence-free fantasies about fracking?
The Prime Minister
I am sure that I will be in Brighton before long, and I look forward to hearing the renewable energy story there. I would say that we need both of those things. We have now set out the strike prices and brought in the Energy Act, so that we can be a real magnet for investment in renewable energy, but I also think that we should take advantage of shale gas, because it provides an opportunity to have clean gas, helping to keep our energy bills down. I would say to those in the green movement who oppose shale gas simply because it includes carbon that that is a deeply misguided approach. We want to have affordable energy as well as green energy. That should be our goal.
Syrian Refugees
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement regarding the Government’s proposal to relocate some of the most vulnerable refugees who have fled the conflict in Syria. The whole House will join me in deploring the appalling scenes of violence and suffering that we have witnessed in Syria. More than 100,000 people have been killed, and the credible reports of systematic use of torture and starvation are simply sickening. Millions of innocent people have fled their homes. There are now more than 11 million Syrians in desperate need, including 6.5 million people displaced inside Syria and more than 2.3 million refugees in neighbouring countries, at least half of whom are children. The numbers are staggering and the scale of the crisis is immense. The Prime Minister has rightly called it the greatest refugee crisis of our time.
The greatest contribution we can make is to work to end the conflict altogether, using UK diplomacy and our international influence to support the negotiations taking place in Geneva at this moment, and that is precisely what we are doing. Our goal is a peaceful settlement that enables a political transition and an end to the violence in Syria. That is the only way to create the conditions for all Syrian refugees to do what they most want to do, which is to return to their homes and livelihoods in peace.
We are also leading the world in responding to the humanitarian disaster. Britain is the second largest bilateral donor in the world after the United States. We have provided £600 million for the Syrian relief effort so far, of which £500 million has already been allocated to support refugees and the internally displaced. We are helping Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey to support those who have sought refuge there. As a result of our assistance, 320,000 people a month are being given food, 900,000 a month have drinking water, and we have enabled almost 316, 000 medical consultations to take place. This is the UK’s largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis, and it comes on top of our efforts to secure humanitarian access inside Syria and to provide essential materials such as shelter, blankets and stoves to help vulnerable Syrians to survive the winter.
The greatest need is in the region and it is there that the United Kingdom can make the largest impact. The Prime Minister made it clear last week that our country has a proud tradition of providing protection to those in need, and where there are particularly difficult cases of vulnerable refugees who are at grave risk, we are ready to look at those cases. Following consultations with the London office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in recent days, I can tell the House that the Government will be launching a new programme to provide emergency sanctuary in the UK for displaced Syrians who are particularly vulnerable.
The programme—the vulnerable person relocation scheme—will be based on three principles. First, we are determined to ensure that our assistance is targeted where it can have the most impact on the refugees at greatest risk. The programme will focus on individual cases where evacuation from the region is the only option. In particular, we will prioritise help for survivors of torture and violence and for women and children at risk or in need of medical care who are recommended to us for relocation by UNHCR. That is where we, as the United Kingdom, can make a distinctive contribution. For example, some of the worst abuses in the Syrian conflict involve the use of sexual violence, including in regime detention centres. The UK’s preventing sexual violence initiative is working to end those crimes globally. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has deployed teams of experts to train Syrians to document and investigate crimes of sexual violence and enable future prosecutions. The Department for International Development is prioritising the protection of women and girls, including providing clinical care for 12,000 Syrian refugee survivors of sexual and gender-based violence in Jordan. Looking at examples such as these through our resettlement scheme, without excluding any others, will help promote our wider goal of ending war-zone sexual violence. That is an approach co-ordinated across the whole of Government.
Secondly, the scheme will be run in addition to the two resettlement programmes the Home Office operates in partnership with the UNHCR: the gateway programme, which settles 750 refugees from a small number of targeted locations every year; and the mandate resettlement scheme, which is designed to resettle individual refugees who have been recognised as refugees by the UNHCR and have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. It will also be in addition to the asylum claims that we have been considering—and will continue to consider—under our normal rules. Since the crisis began, we have taken in nearly 3,500 Syrian asylum seekers, the fourth highest number in the European Union, with 1,100 Syrian nationals recognised as refugees in the year to September 2013.
Thirdly, because we want to focus our assistance on the most vulnerable people, we do not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. I want to make it clear to the House, therefore, that this programme will run in parallel with the UNHCR’s Syria humanitarian admission programme and we will work in close consultation with UNHCR offices in London, in Geneva and in the region.
The United Kingdom has a deep and strong working relationship with the UNHCR built up over many years and £61 million of UK humanitarian assistance to Syria is being delivered through UNHCR programmes. Our approach is entirely consistent with the wider UNHCR programme, is supported by it and will allow us the control to make the best use of our capability to help these cases.
This House and our whole country can be proud of the role we are playing in supporting the Syrian people at a time of great crisis. British money is helping to provide food, water and shelter to hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians every day. We are granting asylum to those who need it, consistent with this country’s proud tradition of giving help to those who need it most, and through the relocation scheme that I have announced today we will be providing emergency sanctuary to the people who are most at risk, including victims of torture and violence. But the only way for the violence and suffering to end is with a negotiated political transition and the Government will spare no effort in working to find a peaceful solution to the crisis that will allow refugees to return home. I commend the statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. We have long had cross-party agreement about humanitarian aid for those suffering in the region as a result of the dreadful conflict and crisis in Syria. I believe that now we can come together with cross-party support for helping the most vulnerable civilian refugees, too.
Compassion and common sense have prevailed over the Government’s resistance last week. Britain is rightly providing help and assistance to the majority of refugees that have claimed sanctuary in the neighbouring countries—Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey—and is rightly leading international efforts, but the Opposition and many others have argued for some time that a minority of refugees are too vulnerable to cope or survive in the camps: the abandoned children, torture victims, women who have been abused and those who need medical help.
We have all heard the heart-rending stories of children burnt by chemicals, families torn apart, fathers executed and mothers raped, so when the UN asked us and other countries across the world to provide sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees and 18 other countries stepped forward to help it was simply wrong of Britain to refuse. It is a tribute to the support of Members from all parties in this House, to the charities that have campaigned on the subject and to the UN that the Home Secretary has bowed to the pressure before the Opposition day debate this afternoon. It is a reversal of her position last week, but she is right to have listened and I am glad that she has done so.
I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to helping the survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk and those who have suffered sexual violence. Let me now ask the Home Secretary a series of questions about her announcement today. First, I welcome her announcement that these places will be in addition to the places provided by the UN to the existing UN gateway and mandate programmes. Countries such as France, Finland and Austria have each agreed to take about 500 refugees, and the Netherlands 250. The right hon. Lady has not set a specific figure, but can she confirm that she expects Britain to provide similar levels of sanctuary?
Secondly, can the Home Secretary confirm that the refugees to whom Britain offers sanctuary will also have access to specialist help and support—for example, working with many of the excellent charities that help those who have suffered great trauma and abuse?
The right hon. Lady says that much of the programme will in fact be delivered by the UNHCR, and she will know that all the things she says she wants to do—the three principles she set out—are possible within the UN Syria programme. Some countries within it have set specific figures; some, such as the US, have not set what she would call a quota, but are still operating within the UN programme. So my third question is: is what she has announced effectively the UN programme, but with a different name?
Fourthly, will the Home Secretary agree to look again at her net migration target? I am sure she agrees with me that there is a world of difference between immigration policy and border control on the one hand, and giving sanctuary to those fleeing persecution on the other. Refugees are included in her net migration target; does she agree that they should no longer be?
I believe that there is now cross-party agreement in support of helping the vulnerable refugees whose lives have been wrecked by the Syrian conflict, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement today. Britain has a long history of helping those who are fleeing terror and persecution. We should stand together in this House and support that tradition now.
Mrs May
I think this is an issue on which Members from all parties across the House can genuinely come together and welcome the steps—all the steps—taken by the Government to provide aid and support to those suffering from the terrible humanitarian crisis resulting from the conflict in Syria.
The right hon. Lady asked several questions, the first about the numbers. We have not set a figure. As the Deputy Prime Minister made clear earlier today, we expect several hundred refugees to come, but we have not set a quota precisely because we want to look at particular needs.
It is particular needs that drive the answer to right hon. Lady’s second question, about specialist help and support. We will of course look to the arrangements we have used for the gateway programme, for example, to see the extent to which we will be able to relocate refugees in line with our existing structures and relationships with local authorities, but there will be people, identified on a case-by-case basis, who need very particular assistance—perhaps very particular medical assistance. We will of course seek to ensure that that is provided for those individuals.
The scheme I have announced is, I think, in the spirit of the UNHCR programme, but it is not technically part of it. The UNHCR has welcomed what we are doing—[Interruption.] I have to say to the Opposition Front Benchers that I think they are trying to make an argument where we do not need to have one. We took a very simple decision. We wanted to create a scheme that gives us greater flexibility and enables us to focus clearly on the issues on which the Government as a whole have been focusing, particularly women and girls at risk and preventing sexual violence. I hope that the whole House accepts that the scheme will offer genuine benefit to some of the most vulnerable people who have been displaced from Syria, and that it will welcome the scheme.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
As one who was critical earlier this week, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement—although I cannot conceal my belief that perhaps it would have been better had we been a part of the overall UNHCR programme.
My right hon. Friend knows that I have previously emphasised the need to deal properly with the children who have suffered so grievously in Syria, and I hope that she will ensure that that is given due regard in applying any criteria.
If anyone is moved to challenge the decision my right hon. Friend has announced, I remind her of the wise words of her noble Friend Lord Hurd, who on a similar occasion said, “The fact that we can’t do everything does not mean that we should do nothing.”
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. I am pleased that he is pleased that I have been able to respond rather more fully on this issue today than I was able to do in oral questions on Monday. We will give priority to survivors of torture and violence, women and children in need and at risk, and particularly those in need of medical care. I hope that the priorities that we are setting will incorporate his concerns on this issue. The flexibility that we have within the scheme will be of benefit to us.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
In the early 1990s, the Major Government accepted under humanitarian programmes about 3,000 refugees from Bosnia, and in the late 1990s, when I was Home Secretary, we accepted a slightly larger number from Kosovo, because of the terrible crises that existed in both those territories at those times. Will the Home Secretary look carefully at the experience of both the Bosnian and the Kosovan refugees to see what lessons can be learned, including about support within the UK, for these vulnerable people, and the contribution that these people, who often did not have go through the awful hoops of seeking access to this country, were able to make subsequently to our prosperity?
Mrs May
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the contribution that has been made by many groups of refugees who, over the years, have found sanctuary here in the United Kingdom. We will, of course, look at past experience. When the scheme was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman there was no limit on numbers, so it was not a quota system. The circumstances in Syria are slightly different from those in Bosnia in terms of the scale of the numbers involved. That is why the focus must continue to be on helping the maximum number of people by aid being given within region, which, as I have said, is where the UK has a very proud record.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for the statement. It is unquestionably right that we should offer refuge to the most vulnerable refugees, and I particularly welcome the focus on survivors of torture and sexual violence, many of whom remain at risk even in refugee settlements. But the effectiveness of this scheme will depend on early identification and access to the right package of specialist support in the UK. How will she ensure a seamless transition between identification in country and access to those specialist services in the UK?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This will depend very much on the relationship that we have built up and will be exercising with the UNHCR in terms of identifying those cases that it believes it is appropriate for the UK to take, and in doing so to work with it to ensure that we understand the nature of the case and the particular needs of the individual. The transition will depend on that relationship and us working with UNHCR.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I, too, warmly welcome what the Home Secretary has done. She has done absolutely the right thing. On the question of resettlement, will she ensure that she involves the British-Arab diaspora? There are 10,000 Syrians living in this country. I do not know what the formal structure will be— it will certainly not be as big as the resettlement of the Gurkhas—but their involvement could be helpful for those who are vulnerable.
There is £90 million sitting in bank accounts in London that has been frozen that belongs to the Syrian Government. Will she speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to whether we can access some of those funds, as other EU countries have done, to help with our humanitarian efforts.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman makes two very good points. On the first issue, as I have said, we have some existing relationships with local authorities, for example, which we work with in resettling through existing resettlement programmes. He makes an important point that refugees coming into this country being able to be welcomed into an environment by people with a similar background can make that transition easier, particularly for someone who is vulnerable. We will be looking carefully, on a case-by-case basis, at how we deal with individuals.
I am certainly willing to talk to the Chancellor about the right hon. Gentleman’s second point. My understanding was that there are strict rules about these frozen accounts and whether it was possible to access money within them. If there is an opportunity to do so, I will certainly be talking to my right hon. Friend.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I very much welcome this thoughtful and tailored extension of what the UK is already doing in relation to Syrian refugees, not least in relation to the situation of women, who will need special care bearing in mind the circumstances from which they come and the impact upon them. In view of the need for us to stay close to the UN, for whom no country could have done more than ourselves, will my right hon. Friend confirm that this does have its endorsement as the right thing for the UK to do, and that her approach will remain flexible should circumstances require it?
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He has long been promoting the needs of Syrian refugees, particularly women and children who are at risk. I can confirm that the UNHCR has endorsed and welcomed the scheme. The UNHCR’s representative to the UK, Roland Schilling, said:
“We welcome the announcement of the UK government to provide refuge to some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, in cooperation with UNHCR. This decision will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees…Today’s decision is an encouraging and important step, reaffirming the UK’s commitment and contribution to international relief efforts in support of more than 2.3 million Syrian refugees and the countries hosting them. UNHCR also recognises the UK’s generous contribution towards massive humanitarian needs in the region.”
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
What about the 560,000 Palestinian refugees in Syria, marooned by a conflict that is not their conflict and with no homes to go to? In the Al Yarmouk camp, they are dying of starvation and their food consists of grass and animal food. What precisely and specifically is being done for the Palestinian refugees?
Mrs May
We are, as a country, helping Palestinian refugees who have been able to leave Syria. But the problem with helping those who are in Syria is the lack of access to them, which is the result of the action taken by and the attitude of the Syrian Government. Obviously, some recent steps have been indicated in terms of possible humanitarian access in Syria. We all want to ensure that we can have access to be able to provide support to those people who are suffering inside Syria as a result of this conflict.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement today. Saving the life of even one woman or child or person who has been tortured or starved in Syria is well worth doing. Does she agree that these people will not necessarily come here for ever? Many of them will come for treatment of one sort or another or for rehabilitation, and we look forward to the time when they may be able to return to their homeland at some stage in the future.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The vast majority of Syrian refugees want to be able to return to their homes and live in peace. Under the scheme, we will be offering a temporary residence here in the UK, but we will consider each individual case as the situation in Syria evolves.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will the Home Secretary kindly confirm that asylum seeker status and refugee status are entirely different things in international law? Will she also confirm that she will liaise closely with the Welsh Government on resettlement?
Mrs May
I am very happy to liaise closely with the Welsh Government, and any opportunities or support that they can give on the relocation of individuals who come to the UK as a result of this scheme will be welcomed. There are different types of status for individuals. We will consider the matter further, but we currently propose that these individuals will be given temporary residence here, but with access to the labour market and other benefits in the same way as refugees would have.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
As someone who was critical of the Government’s position on this, I congratulate the Home Secretary on this announcement. Will she confirm that, when looking at the criteria, children will not be separated from parents?
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I welcome what the Home Secretary has announced today, but I do not quite understand why we are not working hand in hand with the UNHCR resettlement scheme. Is it because under that scheme Germany has committed to taking at least 10,000 refugees? Will we be able to match that figure?
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
Having visited Jordan and seen the conditions in which Syrian refugees are living, I am absolutely delighted that the Home Secretary has made this statement—I hope that it gives her heart to think that doing the humane thing for refugees is often popular and not always unpopular. I am a little disappointed that we are not signed up to the UNHCR’s scheme, but so long as we are working hand in hand with it to identify the vulnerable people, that is what is most important. I ask her to keep under review the priorities she has set as the crisis unfolds, because the people who are the most vulnerable may well change over time. If we are to have our own programme, rather than the UNHCR scheme, that might be important.
Mrs May
I take the hon. Lady’s point about continuing to look at the priorities we have set. As I have said, those priorities tie in with other work we are doing in the region. I think that it is important to have that degree of flexibility, which is what having our own scheme gives us. However, I reiterate the point I made in answer to the previous question: we are working alongside and hand in hand with the UNHCR.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
While I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and share her pride in the way this country has acted so positively in furnishing humanitarian aid to the refugees, will she clarify who will be responsible for defining what constitutes the most vulnerable? I welcome her earlier response that children will not be separated from their parents, but will she also ensure that they are not separated from their siblings?
Mrs May
The intention is that responsibility for determining that will be with the UK and the UNHCR, working together. The UNHCR will identify cases and we will work with it to identify whether the UK could provide the necessary support in those cases and therefore take them on board. The intention is not to separate families. Obviously there might be children with particular needs, such as particular medical needs, but the intention is not to separate families.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The organisation that goes into the greatest danger and is often best placed to identify victims of torture and sexual misconduct is the International Committee of the Red Cross, which in my view is often much better than the UNHCR. What is its involvement with the UNHCR in deciding who should come to this country?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have made it clear that we will be looking at the issue primarily with the UNHCR, which I think is appropriate, because it is on the ground and identifying vulnerable individuals, but I hope that the International Committee of the Red Cross will work with it to ensure—
Mrs May
I hear what my hon. Friend says and recognise his experience when it comes to people who are displaced and vulnerable as a result of conflict. We will of course look to ensure that the Red Cross and the UNHCR work together to identify the cases that are appropriate for the UK.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I welcome the decision that the Home Secretary has taken today, but surely she recognises that we also have a proud record of championing multilateral responses to international crises. If every country demanded the flexibility to set up parallel and unilateral schemes, the entire effort would be undermined to some degree. Does she not at least recognise that? Why is the flexibility she is asking for so important? It undermines our ability to be part of the multilateral effort to help those refugees.
Mrs May
I take a slightly different view from the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that countries that take a separate route, working with the UNHCR to identify vulnerable cases, undermine the international community’s ability to provide support, aid and help to those who are vulnerable as a result of the Syrian conflict. I think that what we are doing is absolutely appropriate. We will be working with the UNHCR, as I have said, but we have identified a bespoke scheme that will allow us to focus on particular groups of people, such as victims of sexual violence and women and children who are at risk or in need of medical assistance. We will be able to prioritise those groups within the scheme in a way that would not have been fully possible under another scheme.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I certainly support the Home Secretary’s statement. I visited a Syrian refugee camp in Turkey only recently, and they were very thankful for the support Britain is providing, but I have to tell her that in three days not a single refugee told me that they wanted to relocate to Britain, or indeed any other country; they wanted to go home and to be free from a murderous regime. I think that we need to keep that in mind when prioritising our resources.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I commend him and the other Members of the House who visited the refugee camp in Turkey, led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). They not only talked with the refugees there, but did some constructive work to support them. He is absolutely right that the vast majority of refugees want to be able to return home to a Syria that is not in conflict. That is why our first priority must be to try to ensure that there is a political resolution and a smooth transition in the government of Syria. Our second priority must be to help those who are “in region”, which means that they will be able to return home when the time comes.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and welcome the Government’s decision to receive the most vulnerable refugees from Syria. It is also vital that the humanitarian aid that we are sending reaches those most in need. However, on the point that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) made, is it not most important that the Government strengthen their efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement that will finally end the nightmare that is happening in Syria and meet the needs of the people of Syria?
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that our first focus must be on trying to ensure that we see that political transition taking place so that the refugees can return home and Syria can return to peace. That is why the efforts being made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are so important. He has been one of the leading figures in the international community trying to secure the Geneva II negotiations and ensure that we get positive results from them.
Mr Speaker
Order. A large number of colleagues wish to participate, but there is also a debate on this very subject to follow. Therefore, my normal practice of calling everybody might not apply today. What is required is brevity, and I think that the textbook on succinctness can be written by Dr Julian Lewis.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I was afraid that you would choose me for that, Mr Speaker.
Like hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, I strongly endorse any help that can be given to vulnerable victims of war, but with regard to the second category that the Home Secretary mentioned—people who have received political asylum—can she assure the House that they are being properly screened so that we do not store up trouble for the future for our security services, as we are already worried about jihadists of our own going out to Syria and coming back?
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the Secretary of State for International Development for her regular updates to MPs. I ask the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to work together so that we get regular updates on what is happening, including the total number of refugees and the progress of the scheme so that hon. Members who are concerned about what is happening can be kept up to date regularly.
Mrs May
I am happy to ensure that regular updates are available for Members, working with not only the Foreign Secretary, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, who should be commended not only for her updates to the House, but for the leading role she has played in providing humanitarian aid in the region.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
I of course very much welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. There is a good history of orphans from war-torn countries growing up to be much-valued citizens in their adopted countries. Will she consider prioritising Syrian orphans and perhaps increasing the number that Britain will take? Such a policy would be both morally right and of great benefit to this country’s future.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Non-governmental organisations, such as the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and Christian Aid, very much welcome the Government’s humanitarian contribution to these awful problems and will no doubt welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. However, they are puzzled, as I am, that the Government have not thus far associated themselves with the UNHCR’s programme, and therefore with 18 important countries. That lack of solidarity seems to be a wee bit intransigent and hardly fits in with the rest of the Government’s approach. Have I missed an obvious explanation?
Mr Speaker
I see that the right hon. Gentleman has put in to speak in the debate as well. We are grateful to him. He will have made two speeches by the end of it.
Mrs May
I refer the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) to the quote I gave earlier from the UNHCR’s representative to the UK, who has welcomed our announcement. He said that it
“will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees”,
and that it reaffirms
“the UK’s commitment and contribution to international relief efforts”.
I think that what matters is whether we are providing help and support for vulnerable refugees in Syria. We are showing solidarity through the humanitarian aid effort that we are providing. As I have said, we are providing the second largest contribution in the humanitarian aid effort in the world, after the United States, which is a very big step in showing solidarity.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), I do not think that the word “orphans” was mentioned by her in the statement or, indeed, by the shadow Home Secretary. Is it not right that, by definition, vulnerable children and children at risk must include orphans?
Mrs May
As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), we will look at this case by case. We have said that children at risk are obviously one of the categories that we will prioritise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has reminded me that our work on orphans is not just what will happen as a result of this scheme, because we are doing very specific work to support them in the region.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I still do not understand why we cannot be part of the UNHCR programme, which seems the obvious thing to do? May I take the Home Secretary back to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman)? Many of the Palestinian refugees in Syria are themselves refugees from Iraq or, before that, other countries in the region. I hope that she will look very carefully and sympathetically at the plight of people driven from pillar to post by the travails and history of the whole region, and at least give them a place of safety here.
Mrs May
The hon. Gentleman is correct in his identification of the particular problem for many individuals who have been displaced not just once, but many times. That is why we have done specific work with Palestinian refugees who, as I understand it, are in the refugee camps. As I said in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), the problem about working with people inside Syria is of course the lack of access for humanitarian aid efforts in Syria.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
This is a good announcement and an appropriate way to mark the 75 years since the Kindertransport, when this country saved 10,000 children from the horrors of the holocaust.
I note that the Home Secretary said that the Government do not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. Will she therefore confirm that there are no targets or limits on how many people can be taken, and that the number can be expanded if necessary?
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, which follows this country’s honourable tradition of supporting refugees. Will she consider giving support to effective charities, such as Asylum Link, to enable them to play their part, too?
Mrs May
I understand the hon. Lady’s point. As I have said, we are obviously looking at a number of asylum cases. The UK has taken the fourth highest number of asylum seekers of those taken into countries in the European Union. We of course look at every one of those cases on the right and proper basis of the need presented.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), the refugees we spoke to told us some horrendous stories about how they got there. Will my right hon. Friend say exactly who will decide, and on what criteria, that one heart-rending case is given refuge here over another heart-rending case? Perhaps that should be done according to the specific medical skills that we can offer.
Mrs May
There will be a combination of factors: the UNHCR will identify individuals who are particularly vulnerable or at risk, but we will have to consider whether the UK can provide the particular support that they need. That will be discussed with the UNHCR, but it will initially identify the most vulnerable cases.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
Like the UK, Germany is among the largest bilateral humanitarian aid donors in Syria, but Angela Merkel’s Government have announced that they are prepared to take 10,000 refugees. The Government’s statement about hundreds of vulnerable people receiving refuge in the UK is welcome, but how does the Home Secretary account for the difference in the scale of ambition between the UK and Germany?
Mrs May
All countries look at how they are best able to give the support that they feel is right. As a country, we have put a particular focus on the amount of money and support that we give to people in the region. As several of my hon. Friends have said, most of the refugees in the camps want to be able to return to Syria. We believe that it is right to focus on humanitarian aid to support those in the refugee camps. It is also right to welcome some particularly vulnerable people to the United Kingdom, and I have set out that scheme today.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my pride that only one country, whose economy is six times the size of ours, is giving more help to Syria than Britain?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The United Kingdom can be very proud of its record on the humanitarian aid that it is giving refugees from the Syrian conflict. As he says, it is the second highest amount in the world—second only to the United States—so we can hold our heads high and recognise the tremendous support that we are giving to Syrian refugees.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
When does the Home Secretary expect the first people to arrive in this country under the scheme, and has she already had discussions about that, particularly with NHS trusts that will have to provide the capacity to deal with them?
Mrs May
I cannot give the hon. Lady a date for when the first people will arrive. We obviously have to ensure that we can provide individuals with appropriate accommodation and support. That process can be done generically at the start, but individuals will then have to be considered case by case.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I appreciate the Home Secretary’s measured response to this dreadful tragedy, for which the United Kingdom has absolutely no responsibility whatsoever, but may I invite her to consider seeing it in the context of the overall impact of migration to this country in recent years? While Germany and France have population densities of 235 and 119 people per square kilometre, England and Wales have 374 people per square kilometre. I therefore suggest two things: first, that we should limit the scheme to hundreds and not thousands; and, secondly, that as a Christian country, we should prioritise Christians who are being persecuted in Syria. Does she agree?
Mrs May
I say to my hon. Friend that I am often very happy to debate and discuss immigration matters with him, but today our focus must be on the help that we are providing to the most vulnerable Syrian refugees. I have indicated the categories of vulnerability that we will prioritise, but I repeat that they are survivors of torture and violence, women and children at risk and those in need of medical care.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s emphasis on those who have faced sexual violence. Is she aware of the work of Human Rights Watch in respect of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Syrian refugees? Will such refugees have access to the programme?
Mrs May
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comment that he has made. In putting the priorities together, I decided that although we will have a focus on women and children at risk, the survivors of torture and violence will include not only women and children, but people of both genders. It is therefore quite possible that individuals who have been subject to the sort of violence that he raises will qualify within that category.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Emphasis has correctly been placed on helping people who have been subjected to the worst abuses of the Syrian conflict, including sexual violence and being detained in regime detention centres. Will she confirm that when people are brought to this country, the evidence collection will not end? It is vital that when people are taken away from the refugee camps, the UK Government continue to co-operate with the evidence collection so that the perpetrators of crimes can be prosecuted.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said earlier, this country is helping with the process of evidence collection by training Syrians to collect evidence. It is important that in bringing people to the UK, we do not lose the possibility that evidence can be collected and break that chain. I entirely accept the point that he has made.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and particularly her focus on vulnerable groups. I want to return to the question that was raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). LGBT groups have experienced particular victimisation, stigmatisation, violence and so forth. I urge her, in looking at vulnerable groups with the UN, to focus on LGBT communities. She said that it was “quite possible” that such people would qualify. That was not as reassuring as I had hoped.
Mrs May
I hoped in my answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby to make the point that the first category will be the survivors of torture and violence, and that we have a particular concern about those who have been subjected to sexual violence. I did not intend to suggest that this was only a “might possibly”. We will work with the UNHCR and it will make the initial identification of the most vulnerable cases and identify those for whom the support that is available in the UK would be most appropriate.
Mr Speaker
I trust that the appetite of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) was satisfied by one question. I know that there is an instinctive element to rising to ask questions and that people often do so automatically.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) has said that we need to learn the lessons from Kosovo. Has the Secretary of State seen the comments that were made by the then Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short? She said that Britain refused to take a quota:
“We are not working on numbers. We are working on vulnerability and need”.
She went on to say:
“We believe that the refugees should be cared for in the region”.
Does the Secretary of State agree that our approach is very similar to that of the previous Government to the refugees in Kosovo?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and he is absolutely right. The important thing is that the United Kingdom asks what is the most appropriate way to support refugees who have been displaced by conflict, as in Syria. First and foremost, it is humanitarian aid in the region that is needed, but it is also right for us to take vulnerable cases and we have set no quota.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Home Secretary will have been aware of the widespread unease across the House earlier in the week about the Government’s position on this issue. I therefore congratulate her, as others have, on the change of tone and spirit in her statement today, which has largely dispelled that unease. However, it is puzzling that Britain—a founding and permanent member of the Security Council—is running parallel with the UN on this matter. If we are working so closely with the UNHCR on this matter, surely we could take a leading role as we have on all other issues.
Mrs May
We are taking a leading role in providing aid and support to refugees from Syria in a variety of ways. We just do not happen to be signing up to a particular programme of the UNHCR. We are not working in parallel with the UN, but are working hand in hand with the UNHCR on a parallel scheme.
Mr Speaker
I appreciate the understanding of colleagues. The debate on this matter will follow relatively shortly and I am sure that there will be opportunities not only for speeches, but for interventions if Members still feel inclined to make them.
Local Government Boundary Commission (Public Representations)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to require the Local Government Boundary Commission to respond to public representations requesting principal area boundary reviews; and for connected purposes.
We will discuss many solemn and important matters today, including Syria, and a ten-minute rule Bill perhaps sits a little oddly among them. It falls to me to add a little bathos to the day. Such is the relaxed and indifferent way in which the ten-minute rule is regarded, I could probably propose any legislative change without the House demurring much or even noticing. Were I to move the expropriation of the means of production and the institution of the dictatorship of the proletariat or the establishment of a theocracy, I think that the House might passively and unknowingly assent.
It would be foolish of me to pretend that the boundaries of principal local authorities preoccupy many people. People care about many things, but local authority boundaries are some way down their priorities. MPs, however, get somewhat nervous at talk of boundaries. We can all recall the recent debacle of the misconceived legislation on parliamentary boundaries and the panic that surrounded it. Many an MP has a love-hate relationship with his or her local council, irrespective of whether the party that controls it is of his or her persuasion. Indeed, it is sometimes better for the MP if the controlling party is not the one to which he or she belongs.
None of that should persuade us that everything in the garden is beautiful and that we should put up with the local government boundaries that we have. Boundaries are neither uncontentious nor inevitable. There has been a constant process of revision and evolution since the Redcliffe-Maud proposals ushered in the modern age. We have seen a range of things: the establishment of unitaries, the disappearance of counties and councils, the abolition of the metropolitan counties, the creation of the Greater London authority, and sundry minor tweaks.
Many of the objections to boundary reviews have disappeared. At one time, it was held that a primary local authority must be of a given size. That requirement made a fair deal of sense when the local authorities ran all the schools before the legislation on academies and the like. We now live in an age when local authorities are losing control even of social services, as social care merges with health care and presumably comes under health and wellbeing boards. We also live in an age when councils share back-office functions and chief executives; outsource many of their functions; and co-operate in city region councils that look like the old metropolitan counties. The priority now is not size or scale, but local effectiveness and responsiveness.
Where the council is not the best or most appropriate local voice, there will be demand for reconfiguration, the establishment of new councils, the reassignment of communities to neighbouring authorities or changes to the boundaries. The problem is not whether that should happen, but how it is to happen. The remit of the Local Government Boundary Commission is covered by two recent Acts: the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 and the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007. Under the current legislation, there are three ways to engineer change: the Local Authority Boundary Commission can unilaterally decide to conduct a review, although it has no responsibility for implementing any review that it deigns to recommend; a council can ask for a review; or the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can initiate a review by asking the Local Government Boundary Commission to act.
The first two steps are unlikely. Councils do not vote for the change, just as turkeys do not vote for Christmas, and civil servants on commissions do not usually rock boats. Sadly, the Secretary of State has made what is almost a policy decision that he is not minded to recommend further reviews in this Parliament. In effect, no major boundary review of a major authority is likely to take place any time soon. I would therefore argue that the public voice is silenced, which is not in the spirit of the times.
The public have been given many new powers—to thwart council tax increases, to bid to take over council services, to decide whether they want an elected mayor and to establish parish councils. However, they have absolutely no power to contest who runs their community. My Bill would change that by obliging the Local Government Boundary Commission to respond to public petitions, on the condition that the petition passes the same threshold as is necessary to force a vote on an elected mayor, which I believe is 10% of the electoral roll. Most people would accept that as an appreciable hurdle. A further condition could be put in place that it is the clear will of 20% of the wards making up a local authority. That, too, would count as reason to get the commission to respond. The mandatory response required from the commission would normally be to initiate a review or, in rare circumstances, to give clear and compelling reasons for not doing so.
I will briefly give the example of my own local authority, Sefton, one of the Merseyside authorities, which is named after a hard-to-find little village in the middle of it. It has two very different centres of gravity and power—Bootle in the south and Southport on the Lancashire border in the north. After more than a quarter of a century of being a hung council, Sefton council passed into Labour control in 2011. Even now, the contrast between the two parts of the borough is extraordinarily stark. In the last election, in 2012, six of the seven Southport wards returned Liberal Democrats, with the Tories holding one. Southport has never elected a Labour councillor, a situation that I hope will be perpetuated. However, Sefton now has a ruling cabinet composed entirely of Bootle councillors. All the chairs of the scrutiny committees are also Labour appointments. I think we would accept that Bootle is incorrigibly Labour. It had the distinction of having the lowest amount spent by political parties per elector at the general election—it amounted to 14p per elector among all parties. It is fair to say that the floating vote sank a long time ago in Bootle.
Understandably, when the council has to make cuts, Bootle councillors look favourably on their own patch. In the recent review of library services, three libraries were closed in Southport but none in Bootle, even though demand for those services was greater in Southport. Time has made a dysfunctional local authority appear more dysfunctional, which is why my local residents’ long-standing concern requires investigation. I personally favour the division of Sefton into two local authority units.
Such scenarios are not uncommon, but in Sefton we have the advantage of having had a review in the past in response to public demand and petitioning. It was parked for a while—the Local Government Boundary Commission promised that it would reopen the issue if the council could better demonstrate that the interests and voices of the diverse communities in Sefton were not being well served. It was able to do that, but no solution is currently available, basically because the commission could not even respond to a timely reminder to return to unfinished business, no matter what the groundswell of public opinion. That problem clearly occurs in many places, but it is one with a solution, and I commend my Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Pugh, Annette Brooke, Sir Malcolm Bruce, Mr Frank Field, Sir Bob Russell, Andrew George, Nic Dakin, Heather Wheeler, Dr Julian Huppert and Tim Farron present the Bill.
John Pugh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 165).
Opposition Day
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Government’s £600 million response to the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis; further welcomes the UK’s leadership in the appeal for aid and supports calls for the rest of the international community to ensure the UN humanitarian appeal for Syria has the resources it needs to help those suffering from the conflict; is concerned about the plight of the most vulnerable refugees who will find it hardest to cope in the camps in the region, including victims of torture and children in need of special assistance; and calls on the Government to participate in the UNHCR Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission of Syrian Refugees Programme.
Much has changed since we tabled the motion a week ago, and I am glad that it has. I am glad that we had the Home Secretary’s statement today, and that she has changed her view in advance of the debate. There is now cross-party agreement on the vital issue of helping the most vulnerable refugees of all, whose lives have been wrecked in the Syrian conflict and who are struggling to cope with that trauma in the region’s refugee camps.
There has long been cross-party agreement that Britain should do its bit in supporting the region. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition joined together before Christmas to describe the “urgent humanitarian issue” that
“transcends the differences of party politics.”
They stood together to say:
“The fate of an entire generation of children hangs in the balance. We must all do everything we can to help them.”
They also urged other countries to do more. Indeed, the British Government have rightly led the way as the second biggest donor, providing development support, food for nearly 200,000 people a month across Syria and cooking and blankets for more than 300,000 people. I pay tribute to the Department for International Development for its work. The British people have also shown immense generosity, donating £20 million to the Disasters Emergency Committee Syria crisis appeal.
We know that more than 2 million refugees have fled Syria into neighbouring countries, particularly Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq, and that more than half of them are children. Those who are still trapped in Syria are suffering even greater ordeals—bitter torture, executions, rape and violations—that are leaving terrible scars on a generation. There has always been cross-party agreement that the majority of refugees should be supported in the region, which is why we need a determined peace process so that people can eventually be returned to their homes. However, that relies on the immense generosity of those four neighbouring countries, which face considerable pressure as a result of the crisis. That is why it is so important for us to show those countries our support and for nations much further afield to do what they can to help.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will have heard what the Home Secretary said in her statement. My right hon. Friend mentions the immense pressure on the countries neighbouring Syria, which are welcoming hundreds of thousands of refugees. Does she recognise that there is a real fear that they could close their borders? Will she call on the Home Secretary to reconsider the issue of solidarity with the UNHCR, through which we can give them the assurances that will prevent them from closing their borders?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The UN raised with us how important it was that the countries providing the greatest support and generosity to Syria as neighbours should not feel that other countries across the world had turned their backs. That was one of the most important reasons for being part of the support for the programme. I will come later to her point about the UN programme, which is particularly important.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Leader of the Opposition use his good offices with the French President? It seems that the French contribution to overseas aid has been tiny compared with the UK’s, and France is surely in a good position to help.
Yvette Cooper
As I have just said, the three party leaders jointly called on countries across the world to do more on aid, and it is right that we should continue to do so. France has signed up to the UN programme to take around 500 refugees and provide assistance for the most vulnerable people in the region, which is also right. We want countries across the world to work with the UN and international organisations to provide assistance to those who are most desperate.
As the UN has made clear, some of the most vulnerable refugees are struggling to cope and survive in the camps. It told us about women who have been badly raped and abused, and who are at risk of further abuse in the camps. There are children with no one to look after them whose parents have been killed and relatives lost, and those who have been tortured and are still enduring terrible mental and physical distress. We need to provide help now for those people as a matter of our common humanity.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady appreciate that in Turkey, for instance, the significant majority of refugees do not live in the camps? Of 700,000 refugees, only 200,000 are in the camps, and children who are outside the camps are the ones not getting the education.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is also the case in Lebanon where refugees living in towns and villages now make up a sizeable proportion of the Lebanese population. Some of the vulnerable refugees that the UN has identified are within the camps, but he is right to say that there will be people in other circumstances who are also experiencing great distress. I know he will agree that many of those refugees want to return to their homes and stay in the region, but it is right that we provide additional assistance to those who are most vulnerable.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend will have heard during the statement my raising with the Home Secretary the plight of LGBT refugees from Syria, drawing attention to the work of Human Rights Watch in identifying the specific issues that those people face. Will she address that issue in her remarks?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point and I have specifically discussed that issue with the UN. It told me that it is keen to ensure that support is provided, and it gave the example of young gay men who have suffered homophobic abuse and persecution, and who may need additional assistance. That is why it is important to include LGBT issues in our consideration of vulnerable refugees who may need additional sanctuary elsewhere and outside the region.
We should rightly provide sanctuary alongside other countries across the world. No one country can shoulder this alone, and we should work together and urge others to join us. France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the USA, Canada, Australia and many other countries are helping to provide sanctuary. That is why Britain must also do its bit and why it would have been wrong for it to turn its back.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work she has done over the past couple of weeks in highlighting this issue and working with charities and organisations outside Parliament. Does she agree that the UK taking in refugees—as the Government have now stated we will—is a mark of our responsibility in the world and of our need to lead efforts and lead by example? A constituent wrote to me stating:
“I feel…very concerned at the UK’s refusal to accept displaced persons…We are shamed by the actions of other countries.”
That is a sad thing for a church in my constituency to be saying.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must not only urge other countries to do more, but do our bit and show that we stand together in humanitarian causes right across the world. We are stronger if we stand together, and it says something about who we are as a country.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I compliment my right hon. Friend on the motion she has tabled and the effect it has had. Will she return to the need for efficiency in dealing with the refugee crisis? Surely it would be desirable if the UK were part of the UNHCR process, rather than trying to set up something that appears to be separate but complementary.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. There is a strong case for being part of that UN programme, and I will come on to that point. Indeed, it was the UN who asked us to help in the first place, and it is right that we should respond to that in the most effective way, rather than setting up parallel programmes.
Many other countries are participating. France, Austria and the Netherlands are proving sanctuary for several hundred people, which is similar to the levels of support that the Home Secretary has confirmed she expects to help. Germany and the US are taking many more refugees, but with all our countries standing together, we are not far off the 30,000 places that the UN has asked for. That is the power of countries working together. Although each country itself may offer limited support, it adds up to substantial humanitarian relief for the most desperate people in the world.
When we called for this debate seven days ago, the Government and Home Secretary held a different position on helping the refugees, and it is right that they have now changed that position. I suspect that the Immigration Minister may be glad that he is not responding to this debate, since he had to reply to the urgent question last week when his position was different. As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a result of strong support for the UN programme from all parties—including many on the Back Benches who raised their concerns as part of that urgent question last week—the Government have changed their position.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady mentions countries working together, and we know that in the UK the Government have put forward an arbitrary figure of 100,000 migrants as their target. Surely refugees should not be included in that arbitrary political figure. That would then give the Government far more room for manoeuvre in order to do the right thing and the humanitarian thing.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in response to the Home Secretary’s statement that I think there is a case for removing refugees from the net migration target. Refugees and those seeking sanctuary are different from those who come as migrants to work and may have homes they can return to and are in a different situation.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The right hon. Lady will have heard me ask the Home Secretary to account for the difference in the scale of ambition between the numbers of refugees being taken in by the UK and by Germany. Given that the UK and Germany are among the largest contributors to humanitarian aid, does the right hon. Lady have any explanation for such a gap in ambition between the UK and Germany on the refugee total?
Yvette Cooper
I do not know the detailed discussions that the Home Secretary has had with the UN on the scale of support needed, but the UN has asked for 30,000 places to be provided across the world. Even without the British contribution, the UN was already well on the way to reaching those sorts of numbers, and the contribution that the UK needs to make can still be significant, even if it is more limited. Each country needs to look at the kinds of support it can provide, and also at support that can be provided in the region. My point is that some small countries are offering places for 50 or 100 refugees, and when all countries do their bit, even if places are limited, that still adds up to a significant international humanitarian effort. It is right for us to support that.
I pay tribute to the charities that have campaigned for the change of heart by the Government: the Refugee Council, Amnesty International, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, Muslim Aid, Oxfam, Save the Children and many more, as well as hon. Members across Parliament who called on the Government to change their mind. Although Labour chose this topic for an Opposition day—I am glad that the Government responded to the prospect of this debate—we recognise the extent of cross-party support and the significance that the views of Back Benchers have had in this debate. This is a good example of Parliament raising and being thoughtful about an issue that was not getting considerable media interest before being taken very seriously in Parliament, and the Government have changed course as a result. I also recognise the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that just because we cannot give sanctuary to everyone does not mean that we should give it to no one. He has also been clear in supporting the Government’s change of view.
Many hon. Members have raised the nature of the Government’s plans and asked why they have decided to set out a programme that is different from the UN programme. The Opposition welcome the Government’s approach and the support that the Government are due to provide. I welcome and agree with the Home Secretary’s emphasis on women who have suffered terrible sexual violence, and her recognition of torture victims. I should also emphasise the point many hon. Members have made about abandoned and vulnerable children who have lost parents and family and other support.
I am glad that the Home Secretary has said she will work closely with the UN, but I am still unclear why she is so uncomfortable about signing up to the UN programme. She says that she does not want quotas, but there is no need to set a quota within the UN programme. Indeed, Britain is already part of the UN mandate programme, which helps a limited number of refugees from around the world who have family in the UK who will support them, and that programme states clearly that it has no quota. The US committed to operate in the UN Syria programme and has set no quota. It has set no specific number and has said that it will work on a case-by-case basis according to need.
The Home Secretary says she wants flexibility, yet the UN programme provides considerable flexibility for different countries to specify the kind of refugees in whom they have expertise and choose to help. For example, in the similar UN gateway programme, Britain specified that we wanted to settle Iraqi interpreters who had helped our troops. We had that level specification within a UN programme.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Many of my constituents who have contacted me in the past few weeks were extremely disappointed with the Government’s decision not to sign up to the UNHCR programme. My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary seems to be gearing up for the same question to which my constituents want an answer. The Government’s announcement is welcome, but what would be required for Britain to sign up to the UNHCR programme?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend’s point is important. We simply do not understand the reason for not being part of the UN programme. As we understand it, the UNHCR will do the work of identifying the most vulnerable refugees. It will provide that support on the ground—that is exactly what it does as part of the UN Syria programme. Many of the elements of the Government’s programme—the principles that the Home Secretary set out earlier—are principles that can be adopted within the UN programme. Other countries have done so. It is unclear why the Home Secretary is so resistant to biting the bullet and why she wants the UK programme, which looks an awful lot like the UN programme, to have another name.
There is an explicit advantage of being part of the UN programme. If the Home Secretary wants to call on countries that have not signed up to the UN proposal to do so, such as Italy, Portugal, Poland and New Zealand, it will be much easier if she does not distance herself from the UN programme. Britain has the aid programmes and bureaucracy to run a parallel programme, but most of those countries do not. We should therefore encourage them to work with the UN and to be part of the UN programme. Surely there is an advantage in saying that the world should pull together. Britain should not go it alone, because we believe that no country alone should have to shoulder the burden of any serious humanitarian crisis. We believe in everyone doing their bit and sharing the challenge.
We will not fall out over this today. The most important thing is that the Home Secretary has come forward with a proposal that will help vulnerable Syrian refugees. The most important thing for the Opposition is that Britain is doing its bit and providing that assistance—that specialised assistance—to those who are most desperate and in need of her help, but I urge her to look again at partnership with the UN.
Let me turn to one wider issue before I close my remarks—other hon. Members have raised it. Hon. Members agree that there is a big difference between, on the one hand, immigration policy and border control, and on the other, providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. We agree with strong controls at our border, and with stronger measures to prevent illegal immigration and limit those coming to work, but that is different from the question of giving safe refuge to those in fear of their lives.
The Home Secretary has set a target to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands. That target is going up, not down, and the Home Office is under pressure to turn it around. However, the target includes refugees. Surely there is a serious problem if Home Office officials are inclined to resist any resettlement programme whatever the circumstances because it will affect the net migration target, which they are under such pressure to meet. I therefore ask her to give serious consideration to the net migration target to make it clear to everyone that there is a big difference between the approach to immigration and the approach Britain has rightly taken to refugees today.
Britain has a long history of providing sanctuary for those fleeing persecution. In the week of Holocaust memorial day, we remember events such as the Kindertransport, which hon. Members have mentioned, and which provided sanctuary and homes for Jewish children fleeing the Nazis at the beginning of the second world war. We have also seen the contribution that refugees have gone on to make to our country, building our businesses, enriching our culture and supporting our public services.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for giving way, especially when she is winding up her speech. Vulnerable and desperate Syrian refugees who fled Syria to escape horrific violence find themselves in neighbouring countries, some of which simply cannot cope. Does she share my fear that they are being driven into the hands of human traffickers? We have seen boats off Lampedusa. Does she agree that that is yet another reason why we need to ensure that the number of spaces we offer in this country is as ambitious as possible?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady is right to describe the risk of vulnerable refugees getting caught up with human traffickers. The Home Secretary rightly referred to people coming to Britain to claim asylum. Some certainly have, but travelling across a continent and being able to claim asylum is difficult for the most vulnerable. When people are vulnerable, they are at huge risk from those who would exploit and abuse their situation. Part of the reason for the UN Syria refugee programme was to avoid the challenges they face—some people are simply too vulnerable to travel and to make their journey elsewhere.
We should recognise the huge contribution that those to whom we have given sanctuary in generations past have gone on to make in our country and their contribution to who we are today. Last weekend, I was in a community in west Yorkshire talking to police officers. One police community support officer who was out on the beat told me that Britain had given him safe refuge when he was 11 years old. His family were fleeing Bosnia. Now, he keeps Britain and people in Britain safe. That is his job. His wife, also a Bosnian refugee, is an intensive care nurse in the NHS, caring for those who are most vulnerable in our hospitals, just as this country helped her family when she was vulnerable 20 years ago.
Our long tradition of giving that help and sanctuary, and of providing refuge for the most desperate, is a testimony to what kind of country Britain is and wants to be. That is why we should stand together in Parliament to support that tradition this afternoon.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
No one chooses to be a refugee. The women and men pouring across Syria’s borders are the innocent victims of a conflict in which the vast majority have played no part. In many cases, they flee because their towns have been pulverised, their children’s schools destroyed, their hospitals bombed and their supplies of food and water cut off. They have lost relatives. Many have been injured. Some have survived the first use of chemical weapons this century. Their suffering, inflicted on people who are no different from us in their desire for peace, security and freedom, is hard for any of us to imagine.
As hon. Members in all parts of the House have said, this is a humanitarian catastrophe with no end currently in sight. At stake are the lives of millions of innocent people and security in the middle east, all of which has an impact on us here in the UK. The question is: what can we do, as the United Kingdom, to address these problems? The answer, above all, as I made clear in my statement earlier today, and as my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have also explained, must be that we work to end the conflict. Her Majesty’s Government are using diplomacy and humanitarian aid to carry out that work, and are taking measures to protect the security of our own country.
The United Kingdom is taking a leading role in addressing this crisis. At the United Nations Security Council, we and our partners are urging Russia to work with us to end the conflict, and we are pressing for full and unfettered humanitarian access. As members of the core group of the Friends of Syria, we are instrumental in supporting a moderate opposition, without which there can be no political settlement in that country, only the murderous tyranny offered by Assad or the warped ideology of terrorist extremists and foreign fighters seeking to exploit the violence. In addition, we are saving countless lives through our humanitarian assistance.
Britain has indeed been leading the world in responding to the disaster. We are the second largest bilateral donor, after the United States. We are providing £600 million for the Syrian relief effort and to help neighbouring countries, which are supporting those who have sought refuge there, to meet the needs of those refugees and bolster their own security. This effort has united support across the House. Right hon. and hon. Members have rightly expressed their considerable concern, and I commend those on all sides of the House who have done much to raise the issue and keep the plight of innocent Syrians in our thoughts.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for taking an intervention. Her doing so allows me to say how much I appreciate the statement she is making today and the way in which it has unified the House on the significant part of her speech. That will be welcomed in Wales, where there is a long tradition and history of supporting peoples who are being displaced and threatened by humanitarian crisis.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for his reference to the tradition in Wales of supporting people who are refugees from humanitarian conflicts.
Earlier this month a team of MPs, led by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), travelled to the Syrian border in Turkey to see how refugees there are being helped by humanitarian aid. The Select Committee on International Development also held a special oral evidence session focusing on the British response, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for his campaigning on this issue. It is clear that everyone in the House understands the obligation this country and the international community has towards helping the Syrian people during this time of great crisis.
Last week the Prime Minister was clear that given the scale of the current refugee crisis, with more than 11 million Syrians in dire need of humanitarian aid, the greatest need is in the region—that is where we can make the deepest impact. He was equally clear that, where there are particularly compelling cases of vulnerable people at grave risk, we will look at those cases. Earlier today, I announced to the House that, following consultations with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office in London, the Government will be launching a new programme to provide emergency sanctuary in the UK for particularly vulnerable displaced Syrians, including women and girls at risk, survivors of torture and violence, and children at risk or in need of medical care.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement earlier today on providing emergency sanctuary for vulnerable refugees in co-operation with the UNHCR. I wonder whether, now or later in her speech, she can tell the House what role she envisages for the voluntary sector at a local level in the effort to help refugees with their transition to our country?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is indeed the case that the voluntary sector will play an important role. The prime focus of interaction in various parts of the country—on, for example, ensuring that accommodation is available—will be local authorities, but voluntary groups will have a very important role to play. Indeed, it is part of the Government’s ethos to look to work with voluntary groups, because of the quality of support that they can give in such circumstances.
Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)
Following on from that point, may I urge the Home Office to discuss with the sizeable Syrian community around the UK what help and support it can give to incoming refugees?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. When people come to another country in these circumstances, when they are fleeing from violence and are particularly vulnerable, working with those who have a similar background and who will be able to welcome them here to the UK is an important part of our work.
Mr MacNeil
Although the right hon. Lady has not confirmed a date for when people might arrive, I hope the door is open from now. Given the importance of this matter, has she discussed with the Scottish Government how they might play their full part and how the Scottish national health service might be ready to deal with the needs of refugees if and when they come to Scotland, which I hope they do?
Mrs May
I am happy to say to the hon. Gentleman that, as I indicated earlier, we will be talking to both the Welsh and Scottish Governments. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration will be writing to the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Administrations on this matter.
I recognise that a number of hon. Members were in the House earlier for my statement, but I reiterate that the vulnerable person relocation scheme will be based on three principles. First, to ensure our assistance helps those refugees at greatest risk, it will focus on individual cases where evacuation from the region is the only option. Secondly, it will be run in addition to the two resettlement programmes we currently operate in partnership with the UNHCR: the UK’s gateway protection resettlement programme, which resettles a number of refugees from a small number of targeted locations every year; and the smaller mandate resettlement scheme, which is designed to resettle individual refugees who have been recognised by UNHCR and have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. Thirdly, because we want to focus our assistance on the most vulnerable people, we do not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. Instead, our programme will run in parallel with the UNHCR’s own Syria humanitarian admission programme, and will be carried out in close consultation with UNHCR offices in London, Geneva and in the region.
I want to be clear that we are not signing up wholesale to the UNHCR’s existing scheme, because we think we can best contribute through a complementary scheme focusing on the most vulnerable cases. Our scheme is, however, entirely consistent with the UNHCR’s wider programme and we have its full support. Indeed, the UNHCR’s representative to the UK, Roland Schilling, has welcomed
“the announcement of the UK government to provide refuge to some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, in cooperation with UNHCR.”
He has said:
“This decision will help to provide much needed solutions for vulnerable Syrian refugees many of whom have been deeply traumatised and face immense hardship. It is also a concrete and important gesture of solidarity and burden sharing with the countries neighbouring Syria as they continue to bear the brunt of the refugee crisis.”
Others, including the chief executive of the Refugee Council, have also welcomed our action today.
With widespread support for our approach, including from the UNHCR, I hope the shadow Home Secretary and other hon. Members will agree that this scheme is clearly within the spirit of today’s motion. Now is not the time for politics, but for sending a clear message that the United Kingdom will continue to do its bit to help those who are suffering. On that basis, I hope that nobody thinks it necessary or appropriate to divide the House on this issue.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. There is absolutely no doubt that today’s announcement will be welcomed by everyone in this House and by constituents who have contacted us with their concerns. Does she accept, however, that there are still concerns about the UK’s failure to sign up to the UNHCR programme, and will she acknowledge that those concerns have not been fully addressed by what she has said today?
Mrs May
I have to say to the hon. Lady that the key people we should look to, to see if they are concerned, are those in the UNHCR. The UNHCR has been absolutely clear that it does not have any concerns about us not signing up to its programme. It has welcomed the scheme that we are putting together. I think that across the country people will welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the plight of Syrian refugees and have been willing to take this action, particularly with a focus on those who are most vulnerable.
In addition to the scheme announced today, we continue to consider asylum claims under our normal rules. We have a proud tradition of giving sanctuary to people in genuine need, and since the crisis began, we have taken in nearly 3,500 asylum seekers—the fourth highest in the EU—with 1,100 Syrian nationals recognised as refugees in the year to September 2013. Where Syrian nationals were working or studying in this country when the conflict broke out, we have also made it easier for them to stay here until there is a resolution to the crisis.
As Ministers have said consistently, we believe that the best way of reaching the greatest number of people is by focusing humanitarian efforts on the region, and that is the only realistic way in which the rights of the vast majority of displaced persons can be safeguarded. Let me outline what the £600 million that Britain is providing is helping to provide.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I commend the Home Secretary on today’s very welcome announcement, but I want to ask her about the wider issue of humanitarian aid. I visited Zaatari refugee camp not long ago and witnessed at first hand the extent of the UK aid to Syrian refugees. Does she share the concern that I and others, including many of my constituents, have about the level of help being given by other EU member states and others in the international community? As well has taking refugees, they need to contribute more financially to help those in the greatest need.
Mrs May
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We can be proud of what we have done. As I indicated earlier, our £600 million is the second largest bilateral contribution—second only to the United States—and I agree that other countries need to look at what help they are providing.
Angus Robertson
I want to help the Home Secretary with a suggestion I have made before to the Foreign Secretary. Why do the Government or international organisations not keep a running total showing which countries have pledged and which have already transferred funds, making it all much more transparent?
Mrs May
We have the totals of what has been pledged by countries around the world. For example, the UK, with its £600 million, is, as I have said, the second largest contributor, whereas Germany, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier, is contributing the equivalent of £350 million—less than us—in humanitarian aid.
Thanks to our funding, food, water, shelter and medicine are being provided to hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians. Almost 320,000 people a month are being given food inside Syria or in the surrounding region; more than 900,000 people a month are being provided with drinking water; almost 316,000 medical consultations have been enabled; and 300,000 people inside Syria have received basic life-saving items, such as blankets, shelter and clothing. We are also acutely aware of the impact the crisis is having on the lives of children, 1 million of whom are now refugees. We are leading the No Lost Generation initiative with UNICEF and others, which is allocating £30 million to provide protection, trauma care and education for children affected by the crisis.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the need for immediate and unfettered access so that all those in need inside Syria, including those trapped in besieged or hard-to-reach places, can receive aid. The deliberate obstruction of aid has been a particularly sickening aspect of this conflict, and there are reports of people being allowed to starve to death, which is utterly inhumane. Humanitarian aid must be allowed to reach all those in need, and we will not let up until that is done in the besieged city of Homs and across the country.
One of the considerable consequences of this conflict has been the immense pressure placed on Syria’s neighbouring countries. More than 2.3 million Syrians fleeing Assad’s brutality have sought refuge in countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Egypt and Iraq. I cannot commend highly enough the humanitarian spirit demonstrated by these countries, and we cannot underestimate the strain placed on their infrastructure. Through the humanitarian assistance we are providing in the region, we can help them better to shoulder that responsibility. In the face of the vast scale of this crisis, the resettlement of small numbers of refugees from those countries will provide them with only very limited relief, whereas funding to support a larger number of refugees in those places will help ease the stress on their systems.
We have also pledged support to a regional development and protection programme that will provide protection in neighbouring countries to those displaced from Syria, making it easier for them to return home when it is safe to do so. In addition to the £600 million we are providing in humanitarian relief, Britain is also providing £12 million in development funding from the Arab Partnership economic fund to Jordan. It is clear that the best and most immediate way to help displaced Syrians caught up in this terrible conflict is to focus on the region and neighbouring countries, thus reaching a far greater number of people and minimising the trauma and the displacement so many have already endured.
Britain can and should be proud of the role we are playing in supporting the Syrian people during a time of great crisis. As I have made clear, British money is helping to provide food, water and shelter to hundreds of thousands of displaced Syrians every day. We are providing humanitarian assistance to people inside and outside Syria, working hard to achieve improved access to humanitarian aid and pressing Assad’s allies to push the regime to do much more, and through our relocation scheme, we will provide emergency sanctuary to some of the most vulnerable caught up in the war, including children and victims of torture and sexual violence.
The only real way, however, to ensure that the horror, the misery and the killing stop is through an agreed political settlement. That is why the Government will continue in their determination to urge all those involved to find a peaceful and sustainable solution to this crisis, and it is why we must keep up the pressure on Assad and his allies. Only when the fighting stops can the conditions for a solution to the humanitarian crisis be created, and only then will the men, women and children who have suffered so much and been so cruelly torn from their homes be able to return in safety to their homes and livelihoods, which is what the vast majority of Syrians so dearly wish.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. As will be obvious to the House, a large number of Members wish to contribute in this short debate. I have therefore imposed a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time.
My parents were refugees. They came to this country from Polish ghettos to escape religious and political persecution. Subsequently, most of their families were murdered by the Nazis in the holocaust, which has been commemorated this week, but despite the trauma they were able to build new lives here. In the summer of 1939, my parents took into their home a young girl who was one of the last to escape on the Kindertransport. She, too, was able to build a life in this country, and my most recent information is that she has a grand-daughter at Manchester university. Helping refugees has lifelong benefits.
The current situation is being watched with anxiety and distress by the Syrian community in Manchester, with which I recently attended a meeting held at the British Muslim heritage centre in my constituency in memory of Dr Abbas Khan, whose murder caused such distress. If my postbag is any guide, that anxiety is shared by those of all ethnicities in my constituency and more widely. There is special concern for Palestinian refugees, who are refugees twice over—from their own country and now from a war for which they have no responsibility, with which they have no connection and in which they have not taken a side. They are enduring death and deprivation in Syria.
The al-Yarmouk camp, just outside Damascus, has been under siege for six months. It was inhabited by more than 155,000 Palestinian refugees, but of those fewer than 20,000 now remain. A list has been published, which is in my possession, of the names of those who have died in the camp and the causes of death. Again and again, that cause is listed as starvation. Refugees in this camp are surviving on grass, animal feed and spices dissolved in water. Extreme human suffering in primitive conditions is the norm. Only 200 food parcels have been delivered to the remaining 20,000 people marooned in the camp.
Some 560,000 Palestinian refugees are living in Syria, and more than half of them have been displaced. Their restrictive travel documents mean that the majority would be unable to leave the country and seek safety abroad even if there were an opportunity for them to do so. Neighbouring countries—I pay tribute to them for the help that they have provided—are overwhelmed by Syrian refugees who have managed to get into their territory.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Let me compliment my right hon. Friend on his speech, and on the work that he has done on behalf of Palestinian refugees. Is it not also the case that tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees have recently arrived in Syria, mainly from Iraq but also from other countries, and that they are in a very dangerous and very vulnerable situation? Some have not even received permanent settlement in Syria, and are therefore particularly vulnerable both to the civil war and to any refugee programme that may ignore them in the future.
Sir Gerald Kaufman
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. No one—apart from the Syrian Government and another authority to which I shall refer in a moment—can be faulted for the efforts that are being made, but the situation on the ground is exceptionally difficult.
Although, as the Home Secretary has pointed out, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq have done their best to help, one neighbouring country that has not made the tiniest effort to do so is Israel. A large number of Israel’s population are refugees and descendants of refugees, and one would have thought that it would have some kind of conscience about the plight of refugees who are, in some instances, within yards of its borders, but the callous Government display no concern. The plight of the Palestinian refugees is their direct responsibility.
No one pretends that this situation can be dealt with easily. I join others in paying tribute to the Department for International Development for providing such huge amounts of money: that is the kind of thing that needs to be done, both because of its direct impact and because it demonstrates the determination of all the people of this country, and all the parties in the House, to do something about this ghastly situation. It is essential that we do not look back on it with the gnawing misgiving that we could have done more.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
The scale of the human tragedy in Syria is horrendous. More than 130,000 are dead, including thousands of children; there are documented cases of torture and summary execution; about 9.5 million men, women and children are in need of humanitarian help; and 2.3 million refugees, half of them children, are spilling into neighbouring countries—Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon. Those countries are absorbing 97% of the massive influx of refugees, and it is threatening their stability. Lebanon is on course to receive 1.6 million refugees by the end of this year, which, for that small country, is the equivalent of 20 million refugees coming to the United Kingdom. Terrorism is back in Iraq, which has witnessed a resurgence of al-Qaeda. The war in Syria is inflaming its own sectarian battles.
Every day in Syria, the death toll, the atrocities, and the numbers of displaced persons and refugees are climbing. Against that relentless backdrop, the UNHCR wants countries to take 30,000 Syrian refugees in addition to the current resettlement quotas. That is a drop in the ocean. The United Kingdom has taken more than 1,000 Syrian asylum seekers this year. We have committed ourselves to helping some of the most vulnerable Syrian refugees, and I welcome the Government’s announcement today, which confirmed that.
It is absolutely right for us not to commit ourselves to arbitrary numbers. A quota of 500, 1,000 or even 5,000 Syrian refugees may achieve much in humanitarian terms, but in overall terms it achieves very little, because it does not tackle the root cause of the problem. As the Home Secretary pointed out in her excellent speech, the only meaningful solution to the refugee crisis—the only way in which to secure a better future for countless innocent Syrians—is a political solution. The refugee crisis has to be considered as part of an overarching foreign policy, and not in isolation. Talks in Geneva this week show us how difficult a task that will be. There are about 1,200 different rebel groups in Syria who have no interest in negotiating. Our best hope of dialogue is of dialogue between Syria’s national coalition and the Government, but they will not talk face to face: self-interest is getting in the way.
With uncompromising preconditions being dished out on both sides, the scope of Geneva II is inevitably limited. Even the deal that was hammered out to aid trapped residents of the war-torn city of Homs now appears to be threatened. The rebel alliance on the ground has issued further demands which it says must be met before anyone can be evacuated. There is nothing new there—this is politics—but it is costing lives and livelihoods.
Whether we like it or not, political progress in Syria will never succeed without directly engaging the puppeteers of this war of attrition. If Iran and the Gulf states withdrew their cash and supplies of arms on the Syrian battlefield, refugees would have some prospect of a safe return. We must stop the supplies of deadly arms, and put pressure on the armed militias that are terrorising Syrian communities. The United States and Russia have discussed a ceasefire in Syria, and only a ceasefire will make the delivery of humanitarian aid to the besieged, rebel-held areas possible as the civil war intensifies. That has already happened in some parts of the country, but millions are still trapped and under siege, and beyond the reach of help.
We have our work cut out for us in trying to ensure that humanitarian aid reaches those who really need it. That may well mean allowing the regime to transport food and medical equipment to areas that it controls, no matter how unpalatable discussions with it may be. Better systems should be introduced to improve the conditions of refugees in camps: reports of domestic violence, sexual abuse and rape from camps on the border are sickening, and more needs to be done.
I am proud that the Government are leading by example. The United Kingdom is the world’s second largest bilateral aid donor, and British taxpayers’ money is providing food, shelter, water and medicine for hundreds of thousands of people. However, we should be urging other countries to carry their fair share of funding the effort in Syria. They should be contributing more to the humanitarian effort where the refugees need our help most. Given that there are more than 2 million of them now and that the number is expected to increase to 4 million in the coming year, calling on the UK to agree to a fixed number seriously misses the point.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mr António Guterres, has said:
“Syria has become the great tragedy of this century—a disgraceful humanitarian calamity with suffering and displacement unparalleled in recent history.”
I want to focus on attitudes towards refugees, and to ask whether we are doing everything that we can and should be doing.
This week we marked Holocaust memorial day, and the theme this year was “journeys”. We remembered those who had sought refuge, safety and a better chance of survival. At the United Kingdom commemoration here in central London, we heard personal testimonies from holocaust survivors of the Nazi death camps, Rwanda, Cambodia, and Bosnia Herzegovina. The Leader of the Opposition spoke very movingly about how members of his family had survived the holocaust, and about those who had not. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government spoke with conviction about the contribution of holocaust survivors who were able to start new lives in Britain; we heard something about that from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman).
I was sitting next to a lady from Leipzig, who asked me “Will we ever learn the lessons of history?” She got out of Nazi Germany just in time, on the Kindertransport, finding refuge in the UK, but many did not. We rightly laud the efforts that were made and saved 10,000 children. It was the Jewish community, the Quakers and others who organised the evacuation, and many Jewish and non-Jewish families hosted the children. But why was it that only children were allowed into the UK? The parents were not given refuge. We should remember that many past, and sadly some present, attitudes to the treatment of refugees, including in the UK, are difficult to justify. We should never forget that, after the Anschluss in March 1938, rather than relaxing entry requirements for Austrian Jews, the British Government tightened them, introducing strictly controlled visas precisely to restrict their numbers. With the benefit of hindsight, we understand that more than 65,000 Austrian Jews were murdered in the holocaust.
Today we are debating a cross-party motion tabled by the official Opposition which acknowledges the positive UK Government role in supporting people from Syria in their region, but are we doing enough to help refugees and are we learning the lessons from history? More than 2.1 million refugees have been registered by the UNHCR in Syria’s four neighbouring states. Hundreds of thousands more are known to be living outside Syria’s borders without access to aid. The UNHCR has expressly asked that the international community accommodate 30,000 refugees. Belatedly deciding to take a number of hundreds of refugees, the UK Government have acknowledged that we all have a responsibility to give refuge and assistance in the UK. I welcome that. However, according to the latest UNHCR figures, the following number of refugees are being accepted by other countries: Germany, 11,000; Canada, 1,300; Sweden, 1,200; Norway, 1,000; France, 500; Australia, 500; Austria, 500; and Finland, 500. The list goes on. Are we doing everything we can to help as many people as possible?
Amnesty International is right to describe the Syrian refugee crisis as an international failure. Positive political leadership from the UK and others in the international community is about financial support to assist refugees in Syria and the displaced refugees in neighbouring countries. But, after assessing needs and calculating what can be done in the region and what needs to be supported internationally, the UN is saying that the international community must accommodate 30,000 refugees.
We have also been challenged in wider areas—that we should share responsibility for refugees from Syria more equally, in particular through significantly increasing the number of resettlement and humanitarian admission places, over and above annual resettlement quotas.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In April 1993, I took an orphan girl into my house when I was the British commander in Bosnia. My soldiers looked after her. Her parents and her brother had been shot dead in front of her. We thought that we should take her out of the country and that that was the right thing to do. In the end, we found a distant uncle and she stayed in Bosnia. The Home Secretary has said that that is the best option. We should bring people out of the region only if no other option is available to save their lives or look after them properly.
Angus Robertson
The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. I underline my comments that, if the UN has assessed that there is a need to accommodate 30,000 people internationally, no doubt it has looked closely at all the factors to which the honourable and gallant Gentleman has referred.
EU member states and the EU have been challenged to strengthen search and rescue capacity in the Mediterranean to identify boats in distress and assist those on board; ensure that those rescued are treated with dignity and that their human rights, including the right to seek asylum, are fully respected; and ensure the end of unlawful push-back operations that deny refugees and migrants their rights, particularly on the Greek-Turkish border. All countries receiving refugees from Syria have also been challenged to automatically provide all people fleeing Syria, including Palestinian refugees—this has been mentioned several times—who were resident in Syria, with a status giving them international protection. Countries receiving refugees from Syria should also facilitate family reunification for refugees from Syria, including by applying flexible criteria to take into account the nature and needs of different families.
In these awful times for the poor people of Syria, it is right to provide aid and support in the region directly. It is also, however, a duty and humanitarian obligation to do whatever we can to help refugees closer to home. The lessons of history are plain to see. There will always be siren voices pandering to the lowest common denominator, who give a million reasons why we should not give refuge and accept people in need. The UK Government have belatedly accepted the case to accept a limited number of refugees. In times like these, we need political leadership to explain why helping refugees is the right thing to do and get on with it.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am pleased to take part in the debate. I commend the motion and the way in which it was moved. I unreservedly welcome the efforts of the Home Secretary and many Front-Bench colleagues to respond to the crisis. I wanted to take part in the debate because the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who speaks for the Opposition, moved the motion in a conciliatory and considered manner. I thought over the past couple of weeks that that was not necessarily the tone being taken by people outside. I felt strongly that there was a danger that a Government who had done an extraordinary amount in relation to the crisis might end up on the wrong side of the argument.
The Government’s basic position is absolutely correct, as all colleagues have tended to endorse. It is best to help in the region where people are concentrated, and the extraordinary efforts being made by neighbours have been helped by the most generous contribution that this country has ever made to such a crisis abroad. However, as times and needs change, a bit of flexibility is not always a bad thing. Therefore, the response to what the UN has been saying has been important.
As all colleagues have said, it is important to work with the UN. We have been its biggest supporters in going around the world asking for higher contributions to meet its appeals. As colleagues have mentioned, a number of countries have not stumped up. It would have been difficult, had we done all this, if the UN had turned on us and said, “You’re not doing enough.” It is good, therefore, that we have reached this position. It is better than just taking a slightly smaller number of people. Targeting the people we can help most, particularly those caught up in sexual violence, bearing in mind all that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done in relation to this, makes an even more important point. The help is targeted, and I think that the response has been absolutely right.
On a wider issue, I too, as colleagues would know and expect, have visited those who have been working with refugees in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. There is hardly enough that we can say about the generosity and hospitality of those countries, or about the skill and expertise of our own aid workers—often technical specialists in the camps and outside. I visited a small town in Jordan where people had been decamped. They are in the local economy and that puts pressures on as well, to which we have been responding. However, the extraordinary skills that people have been displaying to assist those who work for the NGOs and who work through DFID, have all played a part. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done a tremendous job in keeping up interest in relation to that. Therefore, the combination of what the UK is giving by working locally and the response here has been particularly effective.
One or two colleagues say that we should take special notice of Christian victims. I have not spoken much on the matter before. It was a policy I was looking after, but I want to make two or three quick points because it is an important issue. It is undeniably true that the Christian community in the middle east has been under particularly severe pressure in a region where lots of people have suffered, but the answer is not to single them out but to say that the rule of law has to protect all. The importance of that is that it is not being politically correct; it is ensuring that Christians are not identified with the false claim of the extremists that it is a western construct and a western religion. To give any sense to that and to say, however well meaning, that there is a welcome for them in a “Christian country” feeds that narrative and assists the extremists. Therefore, I urge colleagues and people outside who are rightly concerned about the Christian community to take a lead from his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Prince Ghazi of Jordan, who are working with Muslim leaders in the region to recognise the particular issues facing Christians and to work through those leaders to provide relief there.
I want to make a final point on the conflict itself—[Interruption.] The trick to avoiding coughing during a speech is not to eat yoghurt-flavoured peanuts to keep you going. It is not the yoghurt that gets you; it is the peanuts. I shall return to my serious point about the ending of the conflict. I was in Geneva yesterday with the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and I took the opportunity to meet one or two friends who were involved in the talks. The news coming out of the talks is poor. The situation is extremely tough: the Syrian regime does not feel the need to concede, because not enough pressure has been placed upon it.
We are absolutely right to support the Syrian opposition coalition. As colleagues know, I take the view—one that is not shared by all—that they should be allowed a greater opportunity to have the means to defend themselves against the barbaric attacks, because changing the balance on the ground could help the negotiation process and thereby bring about a quicker end to the conflict. It is essential that we focus all our attention on that. Looking after the refugees is important but it is a symptom, not the cause.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend’s analysis. Of course it is right that we should address the problem in the surrounding countries, but real success will involve getting humanitarian access into Syria as well. What more can we in this country do to put pressure on the regime to allow such access?
Alistair Burt
This is genuinely very difficult. The regime thinks that it is winning. We talk about there being no foreign intervention in Syria, but there is. The boots on the ground are from Iran and from Hezbollah, and support is coming from Russia. In addition, the Gulf countries have supported those groups that they believe to be in a position to remove the regime, but they should be focusing all that attention on the official opposition, rather than on the extremists. Starvation and sieges are being used as weapons, which is one of the reasons why it is difficult to get stuff into the country. The regime has played a desperate role in relation to the citizens who have been caught up in the conflict. I believe that extra pressure needs to be placed on the regime. We also need to work with Russia, because it is in that country’s interests that the conflict should end sooner rather than later. The sad truth is, however, that it will end only when that suits other people’s interests, and not, alas, the interests of the people of Syria. We should never lose sight of that fact.
The support of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the people of Syria has been remarkable throughout the conflict, and it is important to stick with them. It is worth working in this way. Only this week, the Tunisian people approved a constitution after three years of difficulty but without the kind of turmoil that we have seen elsewhere. I still believe that, long term, the Arab awakening will work, but there is, alas, much pain still to be experienced in the region. What the United Kingdom is doing to relieve that pain is quite remarkable, and the Home Secretary deserves every praise for bringing forward her proposals today.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Home Secretary is no longer in her place, but she will no doubt read what I am about to say. I had the privilege of asking her a question earlier, and I did so because I am interested in international development and in these important issues. I am the chair of the Friends of the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and I am active in other such groups. I have been worried over the years about the link between the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office and, more recently, the link between DFID and the Home Office. My question was intended to draw out the thinking of the Home Office on these matters.
I do not wish to appear ungrateful to the Home Secretary; her responsibilities as she sees them are for matters such as border control. Nor do I wish to speak for the Secretary of State for International Development, who is perfectly capable of speaking for herself, but I imagine that DFID would identify its priority as dealing with humanitarian practicalities based on the information that it receives from those on the ground, day after day. We had an example of that in the House during DFID questions last week, when I put a question to the Secretary of State about the impact of the Syrian refugee problem on education in Lebanon. She was able to tell the House that she had visited schools in Lebanon the previous week, and she gave us an informed account of what was taking place.
It is because I want to see a co-ordinated approach to these matters that I am taking part in the debate today. I welcome the fact that considerable progress has been made, even since last week. I believe that today’s motion has made a contribution to that progress, as have the aid agencies and the non-governmental organisations that have been pushing hard on the humanitarian issue. The pressure that they have brought to bear is understandable, given that 6 million people have been displaced as a result of what is going on in Syria.
Organisations such as CAFOD and Christian Aid are telling us that there are two major issues. First, the British Government should be seen to be playing a leadership role in supporting vulnerable people by offering resettlement to some of the most vulnerable refugees; secondly, such action would send a message of solidarity to the leaders of the regional Governments. When I listened to the Home Secretary today, I think I knew where she was coming from, but I ask her to try to understand the enormous pressure that those neighbouring countries are facing as they try to deal with the refugee problems. Countries such as Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq are facing great problems, and the NGOs working there are under huge strain as they try to deal with the impact of 2 million refugees.
Just before Christmas, CAFOD held an Advent meeting. I want to quote the words of Father Faddoul, who works in Lebanon and is president of Caritas Lebanon, a partner organisation of CAFOD. He said:
“Many Syrian refugees are now living in desperate conditions: families are struggling to survive in tents surrounded by snow, sometimes without shoes or warm clothes. Many children are unable to go to school. The crisis has caused huge instability here in Lebanon and across the region. We are living on a knife-edge.”
The House needs to bear that in mind.
It would be ungracious not to recognise that Britain is the second-largest contributor, and that we have tried to give a lead in this situation, but I also want to put on record that the UNHCR has appealed for western Governments to accept 30,000 of the most vulnerable refugees from the region. In doing so, we would be joining countries such as Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and the United States of America, and demonstrating our commitment to a shared responsibility. We would all welcome that. We have made considerable progress today, but I hope that the Secretary of State will not mind my repeating that point.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for her generous reference to me, but as she herself pointed out later, we have today seen the confident assertion of the responsibility and authority of the House of Commons, which has proved capable of bringing about a change of heart and a change to the position that the Government set out only last week.
As I have said already, I would have preferred that the United Kingdom’s efforts were a part of the United Nations programme, but my disappointment about that is, to some extent, mitigated by two factors. First, the UN will be heavily involved and co-operating with the United Kingdom and, secondly, we have the endorsement of the Refugee Council of the United Kingdom.
What we have seen today is a recognition of a humanitarian obligation, and one that is much more acute because of this country’s permanent membership of the Security Council of the United Nations. Like others, I have always challenged the notion that the very generous financial provision that we have made can be seen as an alternative to implementing the humanitarian obligation towards refugees. It has been notable in this debate that there has been very little effort to maintain that proposition.
Another proposition that has been aired in the course of the past 24 hours is that people do not want to see us being dictated to by the United Nations. The United Nations is not in a position to dictate; it is not a world Government. The United Nations makes requests. If it makes a request, all members, particularly those that enjoy the privilege of permanent membership of the Security Council, have a responsibility to respond.
We have also seen a change of policy. I am glad to say that there has been no sense of triumphalism. Those terrible words “U-turn” have not been used as far as I can recall at any stage of the debate. That is because common sense and humanity have prevailed. It is said that the proposals that the United Kingdom Government want to talk to the United Nations about will have flexibility—flexibility no doubt over the particular qualifications of an individual that would demand that they be included in the UK-UN programme. I hope, too, that flexibility will also apply to the question of numbers. If we had to set some arbitrary limit, then, as ever, there will be deserving cases that could not be considered simply because they fall outside that limit.
I strongly support the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) in relation to the suggestion that somehow the British effort should be confined to Christians. That is something that was raised by Mr Nigel Farage. On one day, he said that he was in favour of us taking our responsibility. On 30 December, on the Jeremy Vine show, he said that he was in favour of that responsibility only so far as it extended to Christians who had been persecuted. Let me put it this way: I would find it very difficult to distinguish between a woman who had been raped as a Christian or a Muslim. I would find it equally difficult to distinguish between two children who had suffered grievous injury on the basis that one was a Christian and the other a Muslim. The whole point about humanitarian recognition is that it should be universal. Anything less than that is of considerable damage to the obligation.
I will end on a slightly lighter note. Much has been said about the contribution made by refugees in this country. Let me take the House back to the wonderful Olympic games of 2012 and to Mr Mo Farah. Having won his second gold medal—he won the first in the 10,000 metres and the second in the 5,000 metres—and still panting with the exertion of the race, a microphone was thrust under his nose by someone from the BBC, who said, almost as his first question, “Wonderful. Well done. Would you not like to be representing your own country?” Mr Farah, who came here when he was six, was standing there with a Union flag around his shoulders. He said, “No, this is my country now.” If ever there was an illustration of the contribution that refugees can make to the quality of life and the achievement in a society such as ours, it is surely to be found in that incident.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am proud to be a signatory of today’s motion. A few months ago, Plaid Cymru voted against military action in the wake of the suspicions over the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. If an attack had gone ahead then, we would not have seen the relinquishing of the chemical weapons. I should also add that since that decisive debate and vote, Iran has been persuaded to enter talks on its nuclear programme. For the first time in years, there appears to be a better prospect of some agreement. I am not naive about this, but there are signs of progress. Only time will tell whether I am right, but President Rouhani shows strong signs of being willing to engage with the rest of the world. The avoidance of military intervention last year undoubtedly helped to create the space for that to happen. However, I must express disappointment that Iran is not at the table at Geneva II. None the less, there is a growing consensus that those talks are now Syria’s only hope, and we must not lose sight of their importance. Journeys to peace are seldom without their roadblocks, and there are certainly no shortcuts. To be utterly fair to the Government, they have led the way in appealing for and sending aid to Syria, as today’s motion notes.
Diplomacy is the only way to end the bloodshed in Syria. Of course we understand that there are no quick-fix solutions and that many different factions are now involved in the fighting. We wish to see a ceasefire agreed at the current talks in Geneva, and I urge the UK Government to do their utmost to convince the regime and the opposition’s main backers to bring their influence to bear.
The UK has been one of the largest financial donors of humanitarian aid, and that is most welcome. The Government should also commit to being generous in the numbers of refugees. The Prime Minister has rightly described the situation in Syria as the greatest refugee crisis of our time. We all know that a resettlement programme is the only means of offering a durable solution for the most vulnerable who struggle to survive in the harsh conditions of the region.
The UNHCR programme focuses on the most vulnerable. About 30,000 people are being helped, which is a mere fraction of the estimated 4 million refugees who have fled Syria into neighbouring countries. Vincent Cochtel, director of the UNHCR’s Europe bureau, said:
“From the perspective of the refugee it would make a hell of a difference.”
By that he means signing up to the scheme. He went on to say:
“The big picture is that there are 2.4 million Syrian refugees. When you zoom down and take a country like Turkey, it has taken 700,000 refugees, while the 47 countries that make up the rest of Europe have only taken 70,000 refugees. That gives you an idea of the scale of the problem.”
Bob Stewart
Talking of countries that could help, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be nice to see other countries in the middle east open their borders and take in refugees and give more money to support those poor people who have to exist on the borders of Syria?
Mr Llwyd
Of course in any refugee crisis, if somebody’s suffering can be alleviated nearer home, it is always better to do that than displacing them to a country further away. I fully agree with that. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to consider the UNHCR scheme. I have heard what the Secretary of State has had to say on the matter, and there is some force in her argument, but I cannot understand why we are not part of the scheme. The all-pervading hysteria about migration of any sort seems to have clouded the issue. Surely humanity should dictate what we all do. When I questioned the Home Secretary earlier on, I made the point that the refugee status under international law is entirely different and should in no way be affected by the toxic debate about migration, to which we are all being subjected by the media. As one who does not have any nightmares about the UK Independence party or about Farage and that bunch, I add that Wales has a long and proud tradition of welcoming people from around the world. I urge the Government to involve the Welsh Government in this most important of policies. Plaid Cymru has in the past called for Wales to be taken into account by the Migration Advisory Committee, which develops policy. The committee works with Scotland and Northern Ireland but, for some reason, not Wales. I hope that there will be a change in that policy shortly.
I urge the Government to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution and I hope that they will bring further pressure to bear on Russia in the talks. I know that such things are going on and it is fairly obvious and trite for us to state that they need to, but it is right that we should detail them. We all realise, I am sure, that Russia is key to persuading Assad and his supporters to reach some form of reasonable compromise. It is possible that the current round of talks will produce consensus between Russia and the United States on what the next steps towards peace should be.
Today’s statement is very welcome as far as it goes, but despite all the speeches so far I am still unclear about why the Government cannot commit fully to the UNHCR’s resettlement programme. The Government have been sending humanitarian aid, but it is now urgent to ensure that there are safe corridors in that troubled country so that aid can be sent to where it can be effective. That question was touched on by the Home Secretary earlier, and I think it is crucial that that should happen.
In the spirit of the consensus that seems to be developing on all but one or two issues, I hope that we will not divide on the motion today but will move forward with a consensual approach. I hope that the Government will keep everybody fully informed of progress over the coming weeks and months.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I welcome the Government’s statement, which is a positive step in response to a positive call, and I am pleased to hear that we will not descend into a political argument over this.
It is hard not to be moved by the images of suffering and pain that we have seen on our television screens and in our newspapers. The humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding is, as we have heard, the greatest in modern times. The numbers vary, but at least 2.4 million are displaced externally and many millions more internally. It is a story of human misery and suffering and a growing humanitarian crisis on which we cannot turn our back.
Some might notice that I am still wearing the Holocaust memorial day badge and I am doing that to remind us of our duty. Yes, we have duties at home, but our duties do not end at our borders. They extend beyond them. These are men, women and children who need our help and I for one am proud of what we have done so far and today. I hope that the combined actions will stop the crisis becoming another in a growing list of examples of man’s complete inhumanity to man.
We talk proudly of the £600 million we have given in aid, and we are right to be proud of that. It is an achievement, but having just visited a camp on the borders of Syria and Turkey as part of an Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists group, I must say that the countries in the region are playing their part, too. We might be giving aid, but they are delivering it on the ground. Turkey estimates that it has spent about £2 billion on setting up camps to house its guests.
The purpose of the visit was to get a better idea of the situation, and I certainly think that we did. We met Turkish politicians to hear about their efforts and understand their commitment. They have a lot to be proud of. We met the Syrian opposition groups, both the Syrian Opposition Council and members of the Free Syrian Army. The opposition is a complex group representing the majority, but not necessarily all, of those who oppose the current regime. Understanding that is part and parcel of trying to find a solution.
The most important and moving part was visiting the Nizip 2 camp, one of 22 camps set up by the Turks which house approximately 140,000 of the 600,000 or 700,000 refugees who are now in Turkey. The camp we visited is home to 5,500 people, half of whom are under 18, and is made up of nearly 1,000 containers and other buildings. During our time there, we met the refugees—or guests, as the Turks like to call them—and the overwhelming view was that they just want to go home. They are waiting. They are cared for, they are safe and secure and they are fed and watered, so moment by moment they are okay. Scratch the surface, however, and there is fear, frustration and—dare I say—desperation.
As you go about the camp, seeing beautiful, happy, playful children, it is quite cheering until you stop and think, and ask what their future will be. Are they the lost generation? What are their education opportunities or their life opportunities? You start to feel their pain and try to carry out a small act of kindness, giving out sweets and warm clothing, only to be mobbed. A sense of how a situation can change strikes you and if you think too much about it, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the sense of loss of hope.
Those people are our fellow humans, and anyone who is not moved by their plight needs to see it first hand. The problem is that Syria is a long way away and it is easy to push it out of sight and out of mind. If we were more local and it was in our own backyard, we would do even more than we are now, and we would persuade other people to do even more.
As I have said, I am pleased by today’s announcement. I have no objection to playing our full part in the UNHCR’s call for countries to take a number of refugees. Indeed, I feel that it is our moral and ethical obligation to play our part in helping the weak and the vulnerable, the displaced and the war-weary, but I do not want our action to be tokenistic. I am also concerned that we are taking people away from their natural communities and local support networks just to salve our consciences. I still believe that, as I have seen, the best place to provide the widest possible support to the largest number of people is on the ground, locally, within the region.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I was also on that trip and what struck me most was the fact that the camps were so well organised in providing education for the many children who are there and who want to go back and rebuild their country once the regime has gone. Does he not think that the investment in providing education to those children is a crucial element of the support we offer?
Stephen Metcalfe
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One feature of the camp we visited is the service the Turkish are providing in education and access to skills learning. Unfortunately, however, only 14% of children receive any form of formal education. The Turks are doing their best, so if we really want to help we could expand such services on the ground.
All that having been said, however, there are some who would truly benefit from the security and safety that Britain can offer. I support that, but we must remember that whatever we do will be only a small drop in a very large ocean and that by far the best way to help the largest number of people is, as we have heard, to bring all the sides together to resolve the conflict so that the poor souls we met on our trip who have been displaced can return home and start to build the secular, democratic and secure country that I am sure the majority desire.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to contribute to the debate and I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development, in particular, on the £600 million in aid that she has been able to give to Syria and the region.
My seat of Tottenham can be described as one of the country’s gateway constituencies for people claiming asylum or seeking to immigrate into this country. That has been the case for many hundreds of years and it makes the Tottenham constituency the most diverse three-mile area in Europe, with more than 250 languages spoken. At the corner of my constituency, for example, is the Orthodox Haredi Jewish community, which had to flee parts of eastern Europe because of the pogroms and the awful anti-Semitism displayed in Europe at that time.
Of course, my constituency is also the place to which my family came from the Caribbean, my father arriving in 1956. It took me some time, as the son of immigrants, to understand that some of my classmates at primary school, secondary school and university, were not immigrants, as my parents were. They were refugees, building a life for themselves in this country. Poverty, finding one’s way in a new system and sometimes dislocation are part of that, but they also had deep scars and had suffered deep trauma.
Looking over the four decades of my life, I think particularly of those fleeing Cyprus and this country’s outreach to the Cypriots. I think also of those fleeing Uganda because of Idi Amin’s terrorising and expulsion of Ugandan Asians. I think of the Vietnamese boat people and the Vietnamese I was at secondary school with. Then I think of those who, at about the time I was graduating and onward, came here from Bosnia and Kosovo. In each case, we reached out to those people, in part because of a shared understanding of the importance we must always give to refugee status.
That is scarred on the history of this country, beginning to some extent with the first world war, which we will commemorate later this year, and those who fled Belgium and the lowlands. Then, the second world war brought the holocaust, which we remember this week, and the many millions who fled, some finding refuge in our country. So when we talk about the UNHCR, we talk about a very important institution. Of course I welcome the statement, and I am pleased that we will not divide the House on the motion, but I have reservations about the manner in which we are choosing to exclude ourselves from the UNHCR scheme. There are times when we look to others—recently, in the context of Syria, to China and Russia—to play their part in the international family that is the United Nations. If we then step outside the UN systems, what message does that send?
In evoking the Ugandans, it is important to remember that in 1972, this country took in 25,000 Ugandans. In thinking of Cyprus, we should remember that we took in 50,000 Cypriots. In thinking of the Vietnamese boat people, we recall that we took in 10,000 Vietnamese. In thinking of Kosovo, we remember that we took 10,000 Kosovans into this country. Although we welcome today’s announcement, the way in which we set the language of “several hundred” should be seen in that context.
It would be remiss of me not to say how sad it is that this debate is held against a backdrop of concern in this House about immigration. Refugee status is quite different. The truth is that, because of legislation passed under the previous Government, those coming to this country as refugees now account for only 4.5% of people coming here to make a life for themselves. There is an elephant in the room, but I hope that we will look again at the numbers, because I fear for those who are trying to escape Syria today.
Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)
As I said during the statement, I am absolutely delighted that Britain is to take refugees for resettlement. I have a particular interest because I visited projects serving Syrian refugees in Jordan last November. They included projects inside Zaatari camp provided courtesy of the UNHCR by Doctors of the World, UNICEF and Save the Children, and outside the camp by the Jesuit Refugee Service.
It seems to me that there are three reasons why it was right of Britain to agree to take some of the most vulnerable refugees for resettlement. The first two have been spoken about quite a bit, but the third has not. The first—humanitarian reasons—is obvious. I will offer a few remarks on that from my experience in Jordan.
The second reason is solidarity. That was clear to me when looking at the pressure that taking so many refugees puts on Jordan, a country that already has difficulties, with enormous pressure on services. The generosity of Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq in providing for the huge exodus of refugees from Syria is extraordinary—staggering—especially when one considers the debate here about taking just a few hundred. Like others who have spoken today, I think it would have been better had we chosen to take part in a UNHCR programme. It would have easier for us to make the arguments of solidarity, but if we are working hand in glove with the UNHCR, that is probably the most important thing.
The third reason, about which few have spoken, is that if there is no legal route—no hope—for people to get out, the risk increases that they will take extremely difficult journeys to escape. Already, the boats coming into Lampedusa are carrying significantly more Syrians, whereas previously they were dominated by people coming from Eritrea. That is very worrying indeed and shows precisely the reason why we need to provide legal routes for people who are desperate to get out.
When in Jordan, I was able spend a day in Zaatari. It was sobering to see the conditions for the people living there, which are difficult for anyone, let alone the very vulnerable groups of people we are talking about resettling. The UNHCR walked me through the route by which people get to Jordan, and it is worth rehearsing now. Since Jordan started managing its borders, the only way into the country from Syria is to traverse great swathes of wilderness and desert to reach the easternmost point of Jordan where it borders Iraq. Families have to sleep exposed to the elements—rain, snow and frost—for 10, sometimes 12, days. We saw the pictures just before Christmas; those are the sorts of traumatic conditions people are having to endure, so they are already extremely hungry and tired and often have no belongings at all.
The UNHCR gives them the basic building blocks to rebuild their life, but it is a meagre existence for one who previously lived a first-world life. It is worth our thinking about what it would be like for one of us—accustomed to gadgets and soft comforts—to go into a camp such as Zaatari or try to live in the conditions that many living outside the camp are coping with now.
Uniqlo donated 500,000 items of clothing to Zaatari camp for the winter. That is staggering generosity. It is worth highlighting when people do good things in order to encourage them to do more. However, the security conditions and particularly the toilets in the camp have been driving many out of the camp to live in host communities, and their plight is stark. They are reliant on the World Food Programme for food vouchers and have no access to rent, and they are not allowed to work in Jordan. Some work illegally, but most send their children to work. I did not meet a single family, either in the camp or in the host community in Amman where I visited people in homes, whose children were in school. That highlights the potential for a lost generation. People are living in poor, overcrowded, damp and difficult conditions.
It is worth remembering that Jordan has already taken many refugees. It took many refugees from Iraq in particular, and they still cannot work. It was also the backbone of the service that the Jesuit Refugee Service was providing, both its educational project in east Amman and the home visiting team. To end on a moment of hope, I saw there refugees serving other refugees, building a sense of community, working from their own experience and supporting others to integrate in difficult circumstances. That demonstrates what can be done if we provide people with the space to serve others.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I want to speak only briefly, but I want to make some points, not least on behalf of my constituents, who over the weekend expressed to me how strongly they felt that Britain should play its part.
There are now nearly 2.5 million refugees, and the UNHCR states that they are at significant risk of sexual and gender-based violence. Other Members have talked already about the reasons—not least the conditions in the camps. However, the refugees also face more mundane but none the less significant challenges: the inability to earn money, to feed themselves, to have housing and shelter, and to be able to educate their children and to access basic services that will keep them healthy. The UNHCR says that the majority of refugees are reliant on humanitarian food aid. We know that food banks in this country are wrong. The indignity of relying on others for food is a problem, even in the face of more violent and terrible horrors.
Refugees also face troubling and significant health problems. We have seen the return of polio, and communicable diseases such as measles, tuberculosis and other infectious conditions make life as a refugee troubling. UNICEF says that 68% of Syrian refugee children are now not in education, as the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) mentioned.
British people never fail to show their solidarity, and I pay tribute to all who have put their hands in their pockets to show support for the Syrian people. They recognise, as the Home Secretary said, that refugees are ordinary citizens, just like us, caught up in a terrible war not of their making.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Is the hon. Lady aware that the charity Open Doors has recorded that, in 2013, 1,213 Christians in Syria were martyred for their faith? Does she feel that while we address the refugee issue, we should also ensure that there is assistance on the ground for those who wish to stay?
Alison McGovern
There is a range of ways in which we need to show our support. I was sorry and surprised last week to hear Ministers describe the UNHCR programme as “token”. We must do good wherever we can, and I do not hold with the view that has been expressed that because the scale of the problem is huge, each individual action that we can take for each individual at risk is not important in itself. I believe that it is. I would like to pay tribute to each and every one of those people, many of whom are UK citizens like us, who have worked to help those who have been made vulnerable by this conflict. Their work is important and we pay tribute to their efforts.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is talking powerfully about intervention to help those who are suffering as a result of the crisis in Syria. One point that is often lost in these debates is the plight of urban refugees. Many people imagine that refugees are only in refugee camps—and they certainly face real threats—but almost half of them are in urban areas.
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The conditions in the camps were well described by the hon. Member for Brent Central, and we must all remain focused on that important situation, but there is also a massive crisis, which could quickly turn into an economic crisis, for those countries that have welcomed refugees into their cities. We must support not only the refugees, but the host communities. They were not wealthy to begin with and now, as a result of their generosity, risk a difficult economic future.
I will end my remarks by sharing with the House the words of some of the refugees, as documented by the support agencies. I think it is important that we listen to the words of those affected. The World Food Programme reported on the condition of refugees in December 2013 and told the story of Zakiya. She and her three daughters fled to Latakia, carrying little more than the clothes on their backs. She said:
“It was a matter of life and death the day we fled; we could hear the fighting approaching our area quickly and we had to run; we had no choice… I only had time to collect some cash and it was barely enough to cover our transport, let alone buy bread and water to survive”.
It is very important that we remember not only the reality of the situation faced by refugees fleeing present danger, but the possible long-term crisis for a whole generation in the region. They will have to cope with the limits that have been placed on their hopes and ambitions by the absence of sufficient education and health facilities. They are facing not just the return of polio and significant diseases, as I have said, but more mundane risks from illness and infection disease—threats that we all live without because we have everyday health care.
We all just assume that our children will go to school. Reema—not her real name—told Oxfam:
“I miss my teachers. I miss my classes, my English classes, my Arabic classes, my music classes. Now I’m just sitting here every day.”
There is real despondency. That is why I believe that we must take this opportunity, in this House of Commons, to show that we are not helpless in the face of this terror.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have very little time remaining. Members who have not been here for the whole debate have sought to intervene, and the time given to each Member who speaks is increased with each intervention, so those who have waited all afternoon to speak will not have a chance to do so. The hon. Gentleman may make his intervention, but the hon. Lady will not get extra time because of it.
Andrew Bridgen
I will be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Given that the UK Government have already committed £600 million in humanitarian aid for the Syrian refugees, which is 12 times more than France has donated, and indeed more than the rest of the European Union put together, does the hon. Lady agree that what we really want is for more countries to make the commitment to the Syrian refugees that the UK has made?
Alison McGovern
I am proud of the UK Government’s contribution, but I do not believe that it is my place as a British politician to judge others. Rather, I wish to encourage them to do all they can.
In conclusion, as we have seen today, we are not helpless in the face of this terror. We can step in and stand between refugees and destitution. I am glad that, by and large, this House has today agreed to do that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. As Members who have spoken have taken interventions, and because some Members who have not been here for the whole debate have intervened, I have no choice but to reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
I am pleased to follow the moving speech of the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). I strongly welcome the announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister and the statement by the Home Secretary today. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is fitting that this change has taken place in the week of Holocaust memorial day.
I attended a very powerful and moving event in Cheltenham earlier this week. We talked about not only remembering the past, but learning from it and, in particular, about the importance of challenging the hysterical stereotyping of foreigners and of reaching out to those at risk of persecution. I reminded people at that event that I am the successor of Daniel Lipson, who was the Independent MP for Cheltenham during the second world war. He was also president of the Cheltenham synagogue. He spoke out in this House for the rights of refugees and for tolerance, particularly for the peoples of the middle east. I am very proud to be his successor.
I confess that when the Refugee Council first came to me and asked for my support for this campaign, which I was happy to give, I was a little sceptical of its chances of success in the current political climate. Its success is a real tribute to the Deputy Prime Minister and others in government, as well as to hon. Members on both sides of the House, including many Conservatives, who have pressed for a change of policy, but most of all it is a tribute to the Refugee Council, Amnesty International and other organisations and their supporters who have campaigned for change. They can be very proud of what they have achieved this week for some of the most vulnerable people in the world.
I am very pleased that the Government have adopted a scheme that will prioritise those most at risk, particularly women and girls at risk of sexual violence. That group is also a priority in the UNHCR programme, and I remain slightly puzzled about why the Government have not simply adopted that programme. May I ask Ministers to agree to keep the idea of a separate arrangement under review, and perhaps consider adopting the mainstream UNHCR programme in due course?
I want to echo two remarks made earlier today. First, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) asked about the separation of families in the process. I am pleased that the Home Secretary replied that the Government have no intention of separating families, but I wonder whether a slightly firmer guarantee might be given.
Secondly, the point about the difference between refugees and migrants has been made several times. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others have asked whether refugees could be excluded from the net migration figure used by the Government, and I support that idea. If the right hon. Lady agrees with Mr Nigel Farage on that point, the Conservative party can probably be reassured that its right flank has been well and truly covered, and that Government policy might helpfully be modified.
It is important to remember the context in which this step is being taken. This will be a valuable and good drop in the ocean, but it will still be only a drop in the ocean. If hundreds or even a few thousand refugees are accepted into this country, that number will still be only tiny compared with the millions who are refugees or displaced persons in Syria. We have even heard distressing examples of Iraqi refugees inside Syria who have been doubly displaced: they are now refugees again elsewhere, and still cannot return home.
Nevertheless, the British Government have done a huge amount: we are the leading humanitarian aid donor; we are actively supporting the Geneva II peace process, which is enormously important; we have taken more asylum seekers already than many other European countries; and we are supporting those who are still fighting for freedom and democracy in Syria. We have a proud record of supporting the Syrian people, but it has just got a little better.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
This is a really good day for Parliament. Since 2010, I have often been asked whether it is frustrating to be in opposition. This is one of those days that I can say, “Well, sometimes in opposition you can achieve something.” That has been shown by the arguments made during the past 10 days.
Those arguments have also been made by Government Members. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for how he spoke last week, and to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). They have contributed to the groundswell of opinion that has made the Government move their position. I welcome that, and I think that they have done the right thing.
We have a superb record of aid in the region. That is acknowledged on both sides of the House. I am sure that the Secretary of State for International Development will expand on that when she sums up. One thing remains that needs to be clarified. In opening the debate, the Home Secretary made much of the distinction between the programme that she is seeking to implement and the UNHCR programme. However, that is a distinction without a difference. I agree with the Home Secretary that the most important element is the response in the region, but in trying to differentiate her scheme from that of the UN, she said that she did not intend to subscribe to a quota scheme. However, the UN programme is not a quota scheme, as she knows. She needs to establish why, other than for political surface argument, her scheme is different from what is offered by the flexibility of the UNHCR scheme. She has manifestly failed to do that.
For every refugee that we take into the UK for resettlement, it will be life changing. To give one case from my constituency, an Iraqi woman sought the assistance of my office in bringing her sister’s family to the UK. They fled Iraq and went to Syria in 2008 when the husband was killed. Before they could be safely transferred to the UK, the youngest daughter tragically died of an illness that could not be treated in Damascus because of what was going on there. I am delighted that, under the gateway programme, the family have been transferred safely to the UK for resettlement and are rebuilding their lives in Manchester. That is wonderful. There must be no confusion between the UN gateway process, which we have always been a part of and is our normal process for admitting refugees, and what is being embarked upon here. For the torture victims, abandoned children and other vulnerable refugees to whom the Government have agreed to offer sanctuary, time is of the essence.
I have one remaining question. What was it that persuaded the Home Secretary that allowing a few hundred Syrian refugees into this country was not tokenism, which the Government maintained it was last week? Was it the images of the disabled children in refugee camps, was it the tragic stories of rape victims, or was it the prospect of losing a vote in this House?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the tone of the debate and of the motion, which I was pleased to sign. I welcome the Home Secretary’s earlier statement, although I wish that our scheme was part of the UN’s wider scheme. I will use the few minutes that I have this afternoon to make a stronger plea for greater generosity in respect of the absolute number of people we will allow into this country.
So many hon. Members have wanted to speak in this debate because of the sheer scale of the humanitarian crisis that is unfolding. As many people have said, this is the greatest refugee crisis of our time and we have a moral responsibility to act. The UNHCR predicts that the number of Syrian refugees fleeing the country will be more than 4 million by the end of the year. That will be the largest refugee population in the world. None of us have forgotten what the millions of Syrian people who need help are fleeing from: the death and violence preceding and following the deplorable chemical attacks on civilians in Damascus last August. The traumatic images of those attacks are etched on all our minds. We can only begin to imagine the scars that have been left on the surviving refugees by a conflict with an estimated death toll already of 130,000.
In the face of this enormous crisis and the horrifying number of desperate people that we can hardly begin to imagine, all that is currently being asked by the UNHCR is that 30,000 Syrian refugees be admitted to other countries. I stress that that figure is what the UNHCR thinks is politically and logistically realistic, not the full number of vulnerable people who may need to seek refuge on our shores. We should not get fixated on the figure of 30,000, because the number could be much higher. Although I welcome the fact that the UK has agreed to help an unspecified number of refugees, I fear that that number will be very small.
I want to compare that situation with the huge strain under which Syria’s neighbours are already buckling. Not surprisingly, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq are under enormous pressure, and there is real concern that they may begin to feel that they have to turn refugees away from their shores. Scores of people trying to escape the fighting, including families with small children, are already being denied admission by those neighbouring countries. According to an April 2013 survey, 71% of Jordanians want the border with Syria to be closed to new arrivals. With thousands of people fleeing Syria every day, that would be catastrophic. That is why western countries have a moral responsibility to show solidarity with Syria’s neighbours by sharing responsibility for protecting some of the people fleeing Syria.
The current situation in Syria’s neighbouring countries is incredibly fragile. For example, the current estimate is that refugees equating to approximately a quarter of Lebanon’s population of 4.5 million have already fled there, and by the end of the year the UN expects Lebanon to have 1.6 million Syrian refugees, an enormous 35% of the population of a country that was ranked 67th in GDP per capita in 2012. We, on the other hand, are a member of the G8 and one of the world’s largest national economies, and we are potentially being seen to be quibbling about a tiny number of people. The bottom line is that I fear we are not doing as much as we could and should, and that we risk sending out a signal to other countries that it is acceptable for them to do the same.
I hope that we can talk about taking numbers of refugees not just in the hundreds but in the thousands, and that we can talk about what is needed, not the number that it may be politically expedient for us to accept.
Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I welcome the chance to it put on record that we have had a genuinely informed, passionate and, rightly, occasionally emotional debate about how the House, the Government and the UK population can most effectively support those seeking refugee status here and in other countries. I also want to put on record the Opposition’s appreciation of the Government’s continuing financial support for Syrian refugees, and welcome last night’s announcement that we will enable as many as several hundred to settle in the UK.
The worst thing in government is not doing the wrong thing; it is continuing to do the wrong thing when the evidence points in a different direction. All Governments are tempted by the instinct to carry on regardless from time to time, for the fear of losing face or of an Opposition screaming loudly in the media and the Chamber that it is a U-turn. Today, the Opposition have not made that charge, and the Government have not lost face. At the end of the debate, the Government will have done the right thing.
Of course, there remains concern that the UK will not participate formally in the UN scheme, but the most important thing is that some refugees will have the right to settle here. We therefore accept the Government’s announcement without fully agreeing with their argument about the UN, so the House will not need to divide on the motion. However, we look forward to the International Development Secretary setting out in more detail the rationale for staying outside the formal UN process. The US is part of the scheme and does not accept a quota, and other countries are in a similar position.
Today’s speeches have reflected the fact that we are all trying to find the most effective way to help those who may not be able to survive in the camps. They are children who have lost both their parents, women who have been raped or those who have been victims of torture and will struggle to recover from their ordeal—the most vulnerable of the vulnerable. The programme is for those who believe that they will find it hard to get through the coming weeks and months in their current predicament. They are not asylum seekers. They cannot travel to apply for asylum here or anywhere else, and they are already certified as refugees by the UN.
Let us never pretend, in the media or elsewhere, that we stand alone on this matter. The Germans are taking 10,000 refugees, and Norway 1,000. States as far away as Australia and Canada have signed up to the scheme. Spain, Sweden, Moldova and even Lichtenstein have signed up to the scheme in their own ways. Of course, not every nation is offering refuge, but the call from the UN is clear: those that can help, should help—[Interruption.] The International Development Secretary is heckling me from a sedentary position, but as I say, other countries will support the scheme in their own way. It is right that we lend a hand and do not turn our backs.
The United Kingdom, I believe, stands for much more than an amalgam of the four geographies of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is also about a set of values, a way of life, and the way we act on the international stage. We have always been an outward-looking nation, and a country that takes pride in taking care. The British public are part of that spirit; they have broken new records in recent months with enormous financial contributions to the Syrian crisis, gigantic contributions to support victims of the typhoon in the Philippines, and the Comic Relief appeal.
We have heard passionate speeches from my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway), and the hon. Members for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), for Moray (Angus Robertson), for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). They all spoke about refugees, and in some ways touched on the pressures on neighbouring countries.
The UN has asked the world community to settle just 30,000 refugees. Let us think about that. Just one country—Lebanon—is currently hosting 30 times the number that the UN is asking the rest of the world to settle. Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey and Egypt all face enormous pressures, and there are now parts of Lebanon where refugees outnumber the indigenous population. Last week the Lebanese Prime Minister wrote in The Daily Telegraph that Lebanon can no longer cope. He said:
“If the United Kingdom faced the same humanitarian crisis it would be the equivalent of three times Scotland’s population of 5 million crossing into England and camping out in the Yorkshire dales.”
We should applaud those nations and the Governments of neighbouring states who are doing so much to absorb and support those refugees. Prince Hassan of Jordan was asked whether the people of Jordan were running out of patience with refugees, but he replied in a different way and said
“we’re running out of water.”
That gives a sense of the scale of the crisis that those neighbouring countries are faced with, and that is why, when we spoke about the humanitarian crisis, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) spoke with years of experience, and why the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) struggled through his yoghurt-covered peanuts—I do not know if that is the Bedfordshire equivalent of a deep-fried Mars bar, but he did well to get through it nevertheless. In that conversation everyone noted that the humanitarian crisis is not just a crisis of human struggle, but also a struggle in a crisis of humanity. On the doorstep of Europe is a nation that has been transformed, a people uprooted and a region plunged into further chaos. The sheer number—9 million people affected—paints a picture of the scale but masks a simple truth about death and suffering. One unnecessary death is a tragedy, but as we know, 130,000 people have died in Syria. That is not a statistic; it is 130,000 family tragedies, each and every one still being mourned.
Four years ago, Syrians got on with their lives: the morning commute, the monthly pay cheque, the annual holiday and the school run. These were families with hopes and fears, plans for the future and memories of the past—people just like our constituents. Today their lives have been turned upside down and no community is untouched. Where once there was prosperity there is now just loss and terror. There is death, disease, violence and hunger; there are communities under siege, and polio is emerging as hope disappears.
That is why we wish to push the Government a little further on another matter: support for children. Young Syrians are seeing their right to an education snatched away by a civil war they did not cause and cannot possibly fully understand. Ninety-seven out of 100 Syrian children used to enrol in schools, but today if Syria’s refugees were a country it would have the worst enrolment rate in the world—five times worse than sub-Saharan Africa. No one in this House wants to forget those children, and the Government have invested substantially in supporting them. However, we wish them to go further.
In Lebanon, 300,000 refugee children cannot find a place to learn. That is why the Opposition have called on the Government to step in and get behind an international plan to get Syrian children back to schools. That innovative plan is based around double-shifting schools, using available community centres and enlisting the support of displaced Syrian teachers. Much of the thinking and work on it has been carried out by the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), supported by Ban Ki-moon. The US, Denmark and the United Arab Emirates have promised to support it, and I would like to know whether the Department for International Development could do so.
Time is against us in the debate. I shall end where I began. When the Government do the right thing, the correct and proper Opposition response is to recognise it. We should support them when they do the right thing and continue to cajole and encourage them when they are not fulfilling their responsibilities. I therefore thank all in DFID. In the region, DFID is helping to provide humanitarian aid. I thank all Britons working for non-governmental organisations, charities and churches that are helping to provide such aid.
I put it on record that Opposition Members, like Government Members, want the policy that has been announced in the past 24 hours to be a success. We stand ready to provide any advice and support, and input into the Government’s thinking, over the next few weeks and months, on their policy. Those who are struggling—those about whom all hon. Members have spoken and read, and whom we have seen on our television sets—expect nothing more and nothing less than politicians on both sides of the House working together to secure their lives and provide them with some semblance of a future.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
The House has heard many eloquent contributions, and many horror stories of the crisis inside Syria and the impact it has on the broader region. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) set that out. There are men and women inside Syria who are denied access to any form of humanitarian support, including access to food—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) spoke of those who are dying from starvation through a lack of humanitarian support. In a moving speech, the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke of the outbreak of polio 14 years after Syria was certified polio-free. She will be pleased to learn that the UK was part of helping the World Health Organisation to immunise about 200,000 children in Syria at the end of last year in response to that outbreak.
Since the crisis began, 14 UN staff and 32 Syrian Arab Red Crescent volunteers have been killed doing their jobs, going about providing humanitarian support to those who need it. As hon. Members have said, the crisis is having an exceptionally heavy toll on Syrian children. I have made several visits to the region. I have met refugees who had been in the camps for some time and those who had just arrived. Some started off with a lot and some with not very much, but in most cases they have very little, if anything, left to their names. Most have left having seen their towns and villages bombed and in fear of their lives. Many have moved on several occasions before finally taking the decision to leave Syria.
In Lebanon, 40% of the refugees arriving are children aged 17 or under, which is a shocking statistic. I met children who are being educated in the Zaatari camp in Jordan. When a convoy plane flies overhead delivering humanitarian supplies to the camp, the children automatically dive under the tables because they are so used to having to do that in Syria when bombs are dropping.
I assure the House that the UK is standing by the Syrian people in their hour of desperate need. As we have heard, our total funding for Syria and the region is now £600 million, which is three times the size of our response to any other humanitarian crisis. We have also heard that our aid contribution is second only to that of the United States. In fact, it is getting on for as much as all other EU member states put together. That figure represents the deep concern, which I think has been demonstrated across the whole House today, regarding the worsening plight of the Syrian people and the growing need inside Syria in particular and across the region.
Bob Stewart
May I ask the Secretary of State to assure the House that, to the best of her knowledge, refugees who get to the Syrian border and into a camp will be fed and clothed, and have their basic medical needs taken care of? We cannot do anything inside Syria, but we sure as hell can do something on the borders.
Justine Greening
I can reassure my hon. Friend. UK aid is being supplied to more than 300,000 people a month, many of whom are in camps. We are supplying water to nearly 1 million people a month, which is vital. We have provided more than 300,000 medical consultations for people who would otherwise be without the sort of medical support they were often used to in their previous lives. Syria was a middle-income country and people had lifestyles that we would recognise. For them, the transition into camps has been harsh.
Anas Sarwar
The right hon. Lady speaks about support to camps. Given that half the refugees are in urban areas, will she outline what support is going to those parts?
Justine Greening
I was going to refer to the hon. Gentleman’s earlier remarks. He is right to highlight the pressures that the influx of refugees is having not just on countries as a whole, but on so-called host communities. Many have seen their populations literally double, and that is having the sort of effect we can all imagine. It is stretching health care, hospitals, schools—I will come on to talk about some of the work we are doing to support children—water, sanitation and sewerage systems. The UK was instrumental in working with the World Bank to set up a trust fund, focused in that case on helping Jordan, to invest in basic services. We want to ensure that not only are refugees taken care of, but the people in host communities who have been very generous in accepting refugees and have been hugely affected by doing so. Another example, which is part of our work to support children in Lebanon, is that we have recently provided more than 300,000 packs of textbooks for children in public schools. Most of the children receiving those textbooks will be Lebanese and about 80,000 will be Syrian. It is important that we reflect and recognise the support needed by host communities.
Millions of Syrians are facing the harshest winter of their lives. For many, it is the third winter they are facing as refugees. I was in Bekaa valley in Lebanon earlier this month. The UK has provided about £90 million for so-called “winterisation”: winter tents, warm clothing, heating, food, blankets and shelter kits. I pay tribute, as the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) did, to the non-governmental organisations. They are often the organisations that provide this support on the ground. The whole House should pay tribute to their dedication and efforts in what are incredibly challenging and often dangerous situations.
We are deeply concerned about sexual violence. The UK is funding specialist programmes that prioritise the protection of women and girls who have been affected by the crisis, both inside Syria and in the region. We held an international summit, which was a call to action on the overall issue of protecting girls and women in humanitarian crisis situations so that they are not victims of sexual violence. The hon. Member for Wirral South was right to highlight some of the health issues faced by women, in particular, in these circumstances.
Inevitably, it is the most vulnerable groups who find themselves most at risk. Last September, when I was in Zaatari camp, I met a number of women who were living there. It was interesting to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has also been to that camp. Many of the women are stoic about the situation in which they find themselves, but once they begin to talk one hears more about the traumatic experiences they have been through. The thing they worry about most, whether they are men or women, is the impact of the crisis—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. There are Members now in the Chamber who have not sat through this sombre debate, but who are making so much noise that I cannot hear the Secretary of State. Everyone else has been heard. Members ought to show courtesy to other Members.
Justine Greening
The thing that parents worry about most is what the crisis is doing to their children and the experiences their children are going through. I have met children who have clearly been traumatised by these events. Many, on the outside, seem to be coping with the crisis, but when talking to them, one realises that their heartbreaking experiences will mark them for the rest of their lives. When they draw pictures in school, they draw pictures of planes bombing their homes, and when they talk, they talk about chemical weapons attacks and their concerns about what they have done to Syria.
As highlighted today, the big challenge is that Syria’s children are in danger of becoming a lost generation. They will grow up and become adults, and we all have a choice about what kind of adults we would like them to become and the kind of opportunities we would like them to have. That is one reason why the UK has worked hard with UNICEF—we are now its biggest bilateral donor—to focus international attention on the No Lost Generation campaign, which is about ensuring that children, in particular, are taken care of.
The thing about UN appeals that are only half funded is that while many life-saving measures, such as those mentioned today, are taken, those extra things that children in particular often need, such as education and psycho-social trauma counselling, tend to get left out. That is why it is important that these UN appeals be funded, and why the UK has provided so much funding and why the rest of the international community needs to work harder to ensure the appeal is fully funded.
It was particularly interesting to hear from my hon. Friends the Members for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who have seen refugees in Turkey for themselves and who eloquently set out their views on how it was affecting children. I can assure the House that the £30 million that we have invested in UNICEF to provide protection, trauma care and education, particularly for children, will not be the final word in our investment to help those children.
Some 4.2 million children are in need inside Syria, and 2 million of them are school-aged but not in school. We know that many schools in Syria have been bombed. About 500,000 child-registered refugees are not enrolled in school, and as we have heard, some are sent out to work, but some have parents too scared to take them out of the tent and into school, because they do not want to let them out of their sight in camps as big as Zaatari. One of the most important things to do, working with the NGO community and UNICEF, is to ensure that parents feel secure in sending their children to school, often in alien environments.
I have met teachers in Lebanon in schools running two shifts, and they are amazing professionals. They sat down with me and talked about how they and head teachers had work as teams to ensure schools could operate double shifts—in the morning for Lebanese children, and in the afternoon for Syrian children. It is remarkable to see how these children rub along together and have come to understand more about each other’s experiences as the term has gone by.
Clearly, the international community needs to do more. Countries such as Lebanon and Jordan in particular, but also many others, have been incredibly generous in opening up their borders and allowing refugees in, and it is absolutely right that today my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the UK Government would continue to evolve our support for those affected by the Syrian crisis by extending that support and providing sanctuary to the most at-risk refugees from this war. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) talked about Ugandan-Asian refugees coming here. One of them is now the leader of Wandsworth council, which shows the contribution that many refugees make to Britain.
I can assure the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that we will work hand in hand with the UNHCR. I had a good talk with Antonia Guterres in Switzerland last week about how we could ensure the programme worked effectively.
I think that, ultimately, we all recognise that Syria needs a political solution to end the fighting. That point was made very eloquently by someone for whom I have a huge amount of respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).
In the meantime, as we all have hopes for the Geneva II process but retain a heavy sense of the level of the challenges that remain, the British people can be proud of the role that Britain is playing in conveying humanitarian assistance to those who need it. As we have already heard today, not only is that the right thing to do, but ending the conflict and bringing stability to the region is in Britain’s national interest.
Britain is on the side of the people in Syria about whom we have talked today. We will do everything that we can to achieve a political solution, but during that process we will continue to be at the forefront of the humanitarian response.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government’s £600 million response to the unprecedented Syrian refugee crisis; further welcomes the UK’s leadership in the appeal for aid and supports calls for the rest of the international community to ensure the UN humanitarian appeal for Syria has the resources it needs to help those suffering from the conflict; is concerned about the plight of the most vulnerable refugees who will find it hardest to cope in the camps in the region, including victims of torture and children in need of special assistance; and calls on the Government to participate in the UNHCR Resettlement and Humanitarian Admission of Syrian Refugees Programme.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, I said that child poverty was on the increase in Britain. That was disputed by the Prime Minister, who claimed that it was, in fact, going down.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am a diligent fellow, and I was once called “a perspicacious terrier” by Mr Speaker himself, so I double-checked with Save the Children this afternoon. I can now confirm that absolute child poverty is rising in this country, and that, just this month, the Institute for Fiscal Studies released projections showing that, whichever way the Government measure child poverty, it is set to increase massively over the next decade. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Whatever Mr Speaker may have said about him in the past, the hon. Gentleman has not made a point of order so far. What he is making is a point of debate in disagreeing with something that was said earlier. Unless he wishes to raise a matter, further to his point of order, that can be dealt with by the Chair, I must congratulate him on getting his point on the record, but say to him that it is not a point of order for me, as the occupant of the Chair.
Madam Deputy Speaker
It had better be. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not need any help.
Steve Rotheram
Because you were not in the Chamber at the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was trying to explain to you exactly what had happened earlier. Can you now advise me on whether it would be appropriate for the Prime Minister to come back to the House and apologise for misleading—or inadvertently misleading—the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the proceedings in the House earlier. However, I must say to him “Nice try, but it is still not a point of order.”
What is said in the House is relevant and a matter for each Member, and I am sure that, given that the hon. Gentleman has been described as someone who is persistent, he will find another way—although not this afternoon—in which to pursue his point with regard to the information given by the Prime Minister.
Teaching Quality
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 227 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers; and therefore resolves that all teachers in all state-funded schools should be qualified or working towards Qualified Teacher Status, be undertaking ongoing continuing professional development and have their skills and knowledge re-validated throughout their careers in order to support them to excel in the classroom, to improve learning outcomes for all children in all schools, to uphold discipline in the classroom, to tailor their teaching to children with special educational needs and to close the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers.
The motion—which flows on from those very powerful words of the Secretary of State for International Development about the power and purpose of education—begins with a clear statement of principles that were first enunciated by Sir Michael Barber.
This should be a moment when—just as in the previous debate—the House comes together, to extol the virtues of a highly qualified, self-motivating and dedicated teaching profession. It should be a moment when we undertake a shared commitment to give teachers the best possible training, so that we equip them properly for the demands of the classroom, and it should be a moment when we unite in praising all the hard work that teachers and head teachers do on a daily basis, while also acknowledging that we currently have one of the best teaching cohorts that the country has ever seen. I see the Secretary of State nodding in agreement and I hope that when he steps up to the Dispatch Box he will acknowledge the last Labour Government’s role in delivering that cohort and in raising teaching standards. We know of his enthusiasm for debating the past. Today should be the perfect opportunity—
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. Does he agree that it is curious that we have a Secretary of State who wants to micro-manage discussion of the first world war but is not prioritising continuing professional development of teachers who might be able to instruct their pupils rather better?
Tristram Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which leads me perfectly on to my first point, which is about education focusing on the professionalism of the teacher in the classroom, rather than being micro-managed from Whitehall. It was the Prime Minister himself who in 2010 said—[Interruption.] I would have thought that Conservative Members would like to listen to the words of the Prime Minister. He said:
“The quality of a teacher is the single most important factor in a child's educational progress.”
Moreover, he said,
“children with the best teachers”
learn
“four times as fast”
as those taught by the least effective. He was absolutely right. He also offered a solution that drew on international evidence and best practice:
“Finland, Singapore and South Korea have the most highly qualified teachers, and also some of the best education systems in the world because they have deliberately made teaching a high prestige profession.”
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman with considerable interest. Last Friday, I was in a debate with Carwyn Jones, the Labour leader of the Welsh Assembly, who admitted that the Welsh Government had, to use his words, “had its eye off the ball” and for that reason the standard of education in Wales is among the worst in Europe. What advice could the hon. Gentleman give the First Minister of Wales to help improve the standard of education in Wales, which is now lower than that of Hungary?
Tristram Hunt
My advice is to not have unqualified teachers in the classroom and to keep going with the reforms that have been introduced recently on league tables and the literacy and numeracy strategy. We know that the surest way to improve children’s attainment is to boost the status, elevate the standing and raise the standards of the teaching profession. Therefore, today, let us put our differences aside and send a clear message to teachers, parents and pupils that the House understands the importance of teacher quality to improving the performance of our education system.
I saw it first hand last week when I attended the annual prize giving at St Thomas More Catholic school in Wood Green, north London, the most improved school in England. As we saw from last week’s analysis of GCSE results, much good work is being done in schools throughout the country.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he draws a distinction between teachers who have gained qualified teacher status through the study of a PGCE and teachers who have gained QTS through the graduate teacher programme or Teach First? Do international jurisdictions consider those qualifications gained in a different way? Do they value them differently in international comparisons?
Tristram Hunt
As ever, the hon. Gentleman is a master of his profession. We were happy to introduce, under a Labour Government, the wonderful Teach First scheme, which was about the road to having qualified teachers in the classroom. Gaining QTS, as I will explain, is not the be all and end all of focusing on teacher quality, but it is an important plank of the minimum standards that we would expect. The attainment gap between children on free school meals and those whose parents can afford to pay actually widened in 72 out of 152 areas last year. There remains a worrying attainment gap between less advantaged pupils and those from more affluent families, and current policy is failing to address that. The most worrying disparities were in the affluent areas of Wokingham and Buckinghamshire. There is therefore much work to be done.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
When my hon. Friend visited St Thomas More school—the most improved secondary school in the country—did he have an opportunity to discuss with the head teacher, Martin Tissot, the way in which he had rigorously ensured that teaching in the classroom had raised standards in the school? Did my hon. Friend also hear about the commitment of the staff who come in on Saturday mornings as well as taking part in a great deal of activity after school to raise standards further?
Tristram Hunt
Such examples prove the power of leadership, of purpose and of camaraderie among teachers. It is the teachers and the head teachers who are the real agents of change, as Martin Tissot at St Thomas More school has shown. Labour’s academy programme was about delivering that sense of autonomy and leadership, which can prove instrumental in that regard.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has just talked about the importance of leadership. The hon. Member for Lichfield was dissing Wales, but I should like to inform him that Rhyl high school in my constituency, which was a failed secondary school five years ago, is now the best school in Wales. That is down to the leadership of the head teacher, Claire Armitstead. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to Claire and to Rhyl high school?
Tristram Hunt
I would be delighted to pay tribute to the leadership of Claire Armitstead. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for promoting mindfulness and attentiveness in the classroom. Those are the kind of disciplines that help to achieve results.
What happens in the classroom is essential, and the point is simple: good teachers change lives. They engender curiosity, self-improvement and a hunger for knowledge. It is they who awaken the passion for learning that a strong society and a growing economy so desperately need. They are the architects of our future prosperity, not the enemies of promise.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be seeking his own teaching qualification if he is still planning to give lessons himself. Both my parents were qualified teachers, and I am very proud of that fact. Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there are fewer teachers without qualified teacher status in state schools under this Government than there were under Labour?
Tristram Hunt
The hon. Lady admits an important point, on which we can agree. We both want to move towards having more qualified teachers. I am glad that we agree on that, and that she will be supporting that part of the motion tabled by her coalition colleagues. Under the Labour Government, teachers working on a permanent basis in the classroom were working towards qualified teacher status. That is the vital difference: we believed in working towards qualified teacher status, whereas this Government believe in deregulation and de-professionalisation.
The first plank in Labour’s schools policy is to focus on standards and not structures. We do not think that the job is done simply because a school has changed its name to that of an academy or a free school. We think that the most important relationship is between a teacher and a pupil, and we would therefore ensure that all teachers in state-funded schools were qualified or working towards qualified teacher status. We currently have a deregulated, downgraded system of professional teaching standards. Shamefully, under this Government, a person needs more qualifications to work as a burger bar manager than to be in charge of the education of our young people. We believe, as the Prime Minister did once and as the Deputy Prime Minister might still do—it is always difficult to tell—that our young people need highly qualified, highly motivated teachers in their classrooms.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are many unqualified teachers in the independent sector. If that is such a bad thing, can he explain why so many parents make such financial sacrifices to send their children to those schools?
Tristram Hunt
The most recent evidence I have seen shows that more than 90% of teachers in the independent sector have qualified teacher status, so that is the vast majority. I suggest that the remaining number should be working towards qualified teacher status so that they can transfer their skills to the state sector.
Under a Labour Government, we would not have the scandal of an academy school in Leeds advertising for “an unqualified maths teacher” with just four GCSEs. We would not have the scandal of the Al-Madinah free school where the presence of so many unqualified teachers did such damage to those pupils’ learning. We would not have more than one in 10 teachers in free schools being unqualified.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
I have taken the opportunity at the Dispatch Box before to draw to the attention of the hon. Gentleman the fact that the South Leeds academy was advertising for trainees under a provision that has existed since 1982. The letter that acquainted me with those facts was also shared with him. Why has he repeated something that is simply untrue in this House and on other public platforms?
Tristram Hunt
I read the advert and it said, “an unqualified maths teacher.” It was there in black and white. I had at this point—[Interruption.]
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench was accused of lying. Is it right for the Secretary of State to accuse him of lying?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I most certainly did not hear that, and I would have done. As far as I can see, there is a dispute with regard to the accuracy of each Member’s interpretation of the said advert, but the Secretary of State most definitely did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of lying. He has put very forcefully exactly why he is of the view that he is with regard to the said advert. I am afraid that that is not a point of order.
Tristram Hunt
I had hoped at this point in my speech to unite both sides of the House by quoting the words of Sir Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, who said:
“I would expect all teachers in my schools to be qualified.”
However, after last Friday’s remarkable briefing war by the Department for Education against Her Majesty’s chief inspector, I realise that he is not the unifying force that he might once have been. The achievement of qualified teacher status is not on its own a guarantee of teaching excellence; it is merely a starting point. We need to look at new ways of getting the best candidates into the teaching profession and the best teachers into underperforming schools.
Mr Sheerman
Does my hon. Friend agree that a very good chief inspector of schools such as Sir Michael Wilshaw may find such a situation very difficult—I am not making a party political point here. Going back to the foundation of the chief inspector, he is not allowed to look at a chain of schools. If he cannot do that, he has to look at an individual free school and an individual academy. That is restrictive because he cannot see the environment in which that failing school, in some circumstances, can be supported.
Tristram Hunt
My hon. Friend, the former Select Committee Chairman, makes a powerful policy point. It will be policy under a Labour Government that Ofsted will be allowed to inspect academy chains so that we can root out underperformance.
We need to ensure that initial teacher training is preparing teachers properly for the pressures of the classroom, especially when it comes to discipline and behaviour management. Similarly, retention rates are a cause for concern and so too is the loss of talent to the classroom. The second plank of Labour’s drive to enhance teaching quality is effective training and new career pathways for teachers.
In England, the most effective teachers are often encouraged to go for leadership promotion and are therefore out of the classroom within a relatively short space of time. The Labour party will develop pathways to allow teachers to pursue their own particular strengths and interests whether in pedagogy, leadership or in an area of specialism such as behaviour management or curriculum development. Just as the medical profession allows for the development of consultant-level expertise, that must be our ambition in education.
Tristram Hunt
I will give way in a moment.
I must put on the record that we have reservations about whether School Direct, as constituted, has the capacity to deliver that excellence. The story of the programme for international student assessment is that those teacher training systems that have a connection to a strong academic base produce more effective outcomes for learners. We also know that effective training in understanding child development delivers the discipline and attentiveness that many classrooms require. We fear that the important partnership that excellent higher education institutions can play in training teachers is being undermined and nothing I have seen from the international evidence says that that is the route to raising standards.
The most effective teachers are those who can combine excellent practical skills with the ability to understand and use research for the development of their teaching. That is particularly the case when they are dealing with children with special educational needs and troubled learners who are seeking to navigate early adulthood in the modern landscape of social media and the internet.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest, as my wife is a special educational needs co-ordinator, and I absolutely support the points that my hon. Friend is making. My wife, like many teachers I know, undertakes regular professional development. It must be right to say, as we propose, that every teacher should undertake such development and that the Government will support that.
Tristram Hunt
My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. The vital challenge for education reform is trying to keep teachers’ skills up to date. As the Education Committee has said
“successive education ministers have neglected continuing professional development (CPD) and focused overly much on initial teacher training”.
That is why the third plank of the Labour party’s schools policy is a profession-led programme of revalidating teachers on a rolling basis to ensure that teachers are up to date on subject knowledge and classroom technique.
Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
That one-size-fits-all approach does not work across the school curriculum, particularly in arts and music and other such areas. A teacher in a school in my constituency has been a first violinist in an orchestra for all his life and now spends a lot of time in the music department of his school. He has no interest in professional development or in continuing his development, and although I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say there are many areas across the curriculum in which expertise other than the development about which he is talking is relevant and useful to children.
Tristram Hunt
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. There has always been a role for instructors coming into a school—for example, outside experts, lecturers and those who teach sport and music—and we would retain that. However, if someone is permanently in charge of the curriculum outcomes for young people in a class, it seems to me that as a minimum they should be of qualified teacher standard. There is no way that we will block the creativity and excellence coming into schools, but we want the best possible teachers, with minimum guarantees of teaching standards, to look after the education of our young people.
The Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics have concluded that if we raised the performance of the bottom 10% of teachers only to the average we would see a marked improvement in performance in our schools. That is especially the case when we consider that disadvantaged children suffer most from poor teaching. Without home support and social capital to fall back on, children from disadvantaged backgrounds suffer disproportionately from poor teaching.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way and I am grateful to him for doing so. May I ask him at the very least to nuance his policy on non-qualified teachers? I do not know whether since the last debate, three months ago, he has sought evidence on the quality of non-QTS teachers in our schools. If he has, perhaps he could share it with the House. If he has not, will he at least undertake to carry out a piece of research to consider the quality of those teachers before putting in train a system that could ultimately lead to their removal, if not sacking, from the classroom?
Tristram Hunt
I thank the Chair of the Education Committee for his intervention, but I am always bemused by his blind spot on this policy. He makes a curious transition from being a rather inquiring, cerebral Chair of a Select Committee to being a rather more partisan figure when he sits up on the Back Benches pursuing party policy. I would welcome research from the Education Committee on the role of qualified teacher status nationally and internationally. I know that his Committee frequently travels to Finland and Singapore, so perhaps on his next trip he could do some research into that policy area.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recall that, very often, a finding of Ofsted inspections is that teachers who are unqualified or who are teaching subjects in which they are unqualified produce the poorest results? Does he agree that people need to focus on the use of teachers in particular subject areas and their need for ongoing training to ensure that they are not unfamiliar with those subjects?
Tristram Hunt
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. All we are asking for when we talk about qualified teacher status are minimum safeguards to ensure quality.
That is only part of the story. A Labour Government would demonstrate our commitment to elevating the standing of teachers by expecting them to undertake regular professional development, which would sit alongside any internal appraisal structure or the intervention of Ofsted. That is vital to raising standards, and it would bring teaching into line with other high-status, mature professions such as lawyers and doctors. It is also vital for future-proofing our education system. Technology is transforming education—it is remarkable how the internet is allowing access to so much of the artistic and historic creativity of humankind—but I was shocked to receive a letter from Microsoft telling me that, according to one of its surveys, 74% of teachers believe they do not have the skills to teach computing properly because the subject is moving so fast. That is exactly where we want teachers to be up to date with continuing professional development.
Just as doctors are revalidated on their knowledge of new medicines and trials, so teachers have to be up to date with the latest research and pedagogy. We need teachers to share expertise, to observe lessons, and to collaborate across schools and trusts.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I think the hon. Gentleman said—it will be in his script—that successive Secretaries of State have not been interested in continuing professional development. I think that is exactly what he said. Can he explain to me why inset days used to be referred to as Baker days?
Tristram Hunt
Because they were introduced by Lord Baker, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
The best continuing professional development produces remarkable results for young people, and the process needs to be profession-led. If we are interested in serious professional development, it cannot be a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise. I am encouraged by what the Prince's Teaching Institute says in its proposals for a royal college of teaching:
“Certification will be the process by which teachers’ standards are assessed by the College.”
As the former Secretary of State, Baroness Morris, has written:
“The idea of a Royal College of Teachers, fast gaining support from all sides, is the obvious organisation to lead on developing the idea”
of revalidating or recertifying to ensure that teachers are up to date with their professional development.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I know today’s debate is mainly about teachers, but has my hon. Friend given any thought to the development of teaching assistants, for example, and what sort of future they might have?
Tristram Hunt
Where teaching assistants are used appropriately, effectively and professionally, they can make a transformational difference in young people’s learning outcomes. Again, it is about having the skills and understanding of how to use teaching assistants.
Our idea to revalidate teachers and to promote continuing professional development has been welcomed by head teachers, business leaders and prominent educationalists. Teacher Mike Cameron—I see the Conservative party does not want to hear from everyday teachers working in the classroom—says that
“Teachers would control the teaching profession… and part of that involves making sure, by re-validation, that as an individual, I am still worthy of calling myself a teacher.”
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that the Schools Minister is not in his place?
Tristram Hunt
I am decreasingly surprised by the absence of the Schools Minister. When anything tricky comes up in public policy, we have a rather small cohort of Ministers from the Department for Education. As we can see from the amendment to the motion, they are in a neither fish nor fowl place on this.
The CBI has welcomed our policy. Katja Hall said:
“we need to create a culture where teachers are continually developed in the classroom to support them raising standards in schools. A licence system deserves serious consideration”.
From Brett Wigdortz of Teach First to the leading teaching trade unions to Russell Hobby of the National Association of Head Teachers, there is clear engagement and support for the idea. Even the Secretary of State’s old employer, The Times—before he spurned it for the Daily Mail group—has called the policy “courageous and correct”. I would hope for similar support from the coalition parties today.
The Opposition’s call is simply put in the first sentence of the motion: no education system can outperform the quality of its teachers. So instead of the relentless energy spent on endless structural reform, instead of the confused tinkering with the curriculum, instead of telling teachers how to teach chunking or whether they should use exercise books or not, our policy is altogether more ambitious—to work towards a world-class teacher in every classroom. I hope that Government Members will join us this afternoon in supporting the motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I have to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Chris Skidmore
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his speech, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) said that the head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was specifically opposed to the use of unqualified teachers. Yet in an article in The Daily Telegraph on 9 December 2013—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman wishes to speak in this debate and he is already putting his arguments on the record. Perhaps he will be a little more patient. That is not a point of order. It is a point of debate and he can make it when it is his turn. I call the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that the Coalition Government is committed to raising the quality and status of teaching; acknowledges the significant progress made since 2010 in achieving those aims; recognises that the part of the Coalition led by the Deputy Prime Minister believes that all state-funded schools should employ teachers with or working towards Qualified Teacher Status; also recognises that the part of the Coalition led by the Prime Minister believes that free schools and academies should retain the freedom to hire the best teachers regardless of whether they hold Qualified Teacher Status; and registers the fact that the number of teachers without Qualified Teacher Status has fallen under this Government.”
I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on his speech and on securing the debate. I agree with him that there is nothing more important than ensuring that we have top quality teachers in all our classrooms. While I have the time, I also congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for children and families, who was last night voted by Dod’s as Minister of the year for the fantastic work that he has done on adoption and child protection. Because that vote depended on support across the House, it is a recognition of the outstanding job that he does. [Interruption.] I will come to the shadow Schools Minister and the West Cardiff question in a moment.
In the meantime, may I also congratulate the country’s teachers. The shadow Secretary of State was typically generous in pointing out that we have the best generation of teachers and heads in our classrooms. Just last week, with the latest GCSE results, we saw that the number of students who were in underperforming schools had dropped in the last year by hundreds of thousands. Across the House there is an appreciation of the superb work done by teachers and head teachers in state education, ensuring that our state education system is better than ever before.
Because I too, like the shadow Secretary of State, am interested in the opinion of teachers, I sent the Opposition’s motion today to a friend of mine who is an English teacher to ask him for his view. He presented me with this analysis of it.
Michael Gove
I will name him in due course.
The motion states:
“That this House believes that no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers; and therefore resolves”.
My friend said:
“A clause following a semi-colon needs an expressly stated subject (as opposed to a merely ‘understood’ one, just as a complete sentence does. In other words, either the semi-colon must be replaced by a comma or the clause after it must be changed to something like ‘and that this house therefore resolves’ or ‘and that it therefore resolves’. As it stands, the construction is ungrammatical.”
He went on to the next phrase, which refers to
“all teachers in all state-funded schools”
and stated that
“one or other of the two ‘alls’ is redundant and should be deleted”.
He then looked at the phrase
“should be qualified or working towards Qualified Teacher Status”.
He acknowledged that it was
“better, because less awkward-looking”,
but suggested that “should” as well as “be” should be at the beginning of each of the clauses.
He then pointed out that the reference to “ongoing continuing professional development” was tautologous, because continuing professional development is, by definition, ongoing. He also noted that the claim that that was
“in order to support them to excel in the classroom”
was an example of “Shocking grammar.” One cannot support someone to do something—following the word “support” with an infinitive. Rather, one supports someone in his or her attempt to do something. He went on in a similar vein and concluded: “Regrettably, this motion is, in total, a shocking piece of English.”
The reason I mention that is that I have enormous respect and affection for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). He and I are fans of both George Eliot and George Orwell. George Orwell wrote that
“the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers”
because
“the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts… Political language”—
of the kind we see in the Opposition’s motion—
“is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
Sadly, that is what the Opposition’s case today is—pure wind without solidity.
The Opposition appear to be arguing that there is some sort of crisis in teaching, specifically recruitment to teaching, but the number of graduates with top degrees is up. Almost three quarters of graduates starting teacher training in this academic year have a first-class or 2:1 degree. That is the highest quality of graduates starting teacher training since records began. It is also the case that the number entering the teaching profession from top universities is up. Some 14% of graduates leaving Oxford in the past three years have chosen teaching as their profession, making it the single most popular destination for students from that university.
The quality of teaching has never been better. Ofsted figures show that it has improved significantly since 2010. Under Labour, the percentage of teaching that was “good” or “outstanding” in primary schools was 69%, but recent figures show that it is now 79%. Under Labour, the percentage of teaching that was “good” or “outstanding” in secondary schools was 65%, but now it is 72%. That is significant improvement under this coalition Government.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman laboured heavily on grammar. I would like to know whether, in the recesses of his mind, he sees grammar as something that is fixed for ever. Does he see grammar as being prescriptive or descriptive?
Michael Gove
That is probably the best intervention we have had for some time on the question of education, because it actually relates to what is taught. I believe that we need proper grammatical rules in order to ensure that words are used with precision. Like all bodies of knowledge, however, it evolves over time. There is no tension between recognising that there are certain grammatical rules and that they change, in the same way as there is no tension between recognising that there are certain literary works that should always be in the canon and that over time they change. For example, Macpherson’s “Ossian” is out of the canon, but Burns will always be in.
Mr Marsden
The Secretary of State talked about sloppy language and various other things. Would he care to define for the House the meaning of the words he just used: “top teachers from our universities”?
Michael Gove
I said, “teachers from our top universities”. Of course, I refer to Oxford university as one of our top universities, but perhaps I should have included Cambridge and Imperial, or Aberdeen and Edinburgh for that matter—there are many. The point I am making is that the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that we want teaching to be an elite profession and then, when we congratulate those people from elite institutions who go into teaching, decry us for somehow being snobbish. I have taken the hon. Gentleman’s point. In fact, I have expanded it into a logical argument, only subsequently to refute it.
Michael Gove
Yes.
I know what the shadow Secretary of State will say, because I have heard him say it before. He will say, “Okay, Secretary of State. The quality of teachers at the moment—it pains me to admit it—must be good, but I prophesy that the situation will deteriorate. It will deteriorate because of your open-door policy on teaching.” Like his fellow west midlander or black countryman Enoch Powell, Tristram sees the Government letting all the wrong people in. As a result of our dangerously liberal policies, he can see torrents of rubbish being taught in our classrooms. His is what one might call the “rivers of crud” prophecy.
What is the truth? The number of teachers without qualified teacher status is going down under this Government. In 2012, unqualified teachers made up only 3.3% of the teaching work force in all schools, down from 4.5% in 2005. The proportion of unqualified teachers has diminished in every year that we have been in power. That utterly refutes the scaremongering of the Enoch Powell-like figure on the Opposition Front Bench. We know that Labour will say, “Well, it’s going up in academies and free schools.” Labour uses a statistic, and I will leave it to the House to decide exactly how accurate and helpful it is: in its proper scaremongering way, it says that there has been a 141% increase in unqualified teachers in academies and free schools since the election. Like the Fat Boy in Dickens, he wants to make our flesh creep.
The truth is that the number of unqualified teachers in academies has risen only because the number of academies has increased so much. In fact, the proportion of unqualified teachers in academies has halved since 2010, from 9.6% to 4.8%, and the number of qualified teachers in academies has increased by 460%—North Korean levels of achievement under the coalition Government.
Andrew Percy
I am sorry to intervene on the Secretary of State halfway through his assessment of North Korean education. May I take him back to the issue of unqualified teachers under the previous Government? We have heard the repeated myth that they had to be on course to qualification. Will he confirm that under the previous Government schools could employ instructors permanently to teach subjects? As they did in my school, they taught classes and taught subjects on a permanent basis.
Michael Gove
Not for the first time and I am sure not for the last time, my hon. Friend hits the nail squarely on the head. It has now been the case for some time that schools can advertise for and employ instructors, trainees or others.
Michael Gove
We will come to that.
It is important to recognise that situation, because that is exactly what has happened in the school referred to several times in this Chamber and elsewhere by the shadow Secretary of State—the South Leeds academy. When he first raised the issue, I was genuinely concerned, because he said that unqualified teachers might have been hired with just a few GCSEs. If such people were teachers in the classroom, that would be a genuine cause for concern. He alleged that the academy could do that only because of our changes in policy. [Interruption.] No, absolutely not. The South Leeds academy does not have the power in its funding agreement to hire unqualified teachers, because its funding agreement was constructed, written and agreed before the change in policy. The South Leeds academy has advertised for trainees under a policy that has been in place since at least 1982.
I made that point in this House, and I invited the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge that he had made a mistake. I did so as graciously as I could. [Interruption.] No. I hoped that he would take the trouble to check his facts, but he did not. I have received a letter from the chief executive officer and director of Schools Partnership Trust Academies, which is responsible for the school. Of the specific case of South Leeds academy, he said: “The post advertised was for the appointment of trainees to support the teaching of mathematics. This was not made clear in the advert, which was placed in error. Once I became aware of the issue, the advert was withdrawn. A statement was placed on our website to clarify the matter.”
Moreover, I drew that matter to the attention of the shadow Secretary of State in the House. I told him that he was persisting in error, and I gave him an opportunity to retract. He chose not to do so. Will he now take the opportunity to apologise to the South Leeds academy and to the House for getting his facts wrong?
I note that he had the opportunity then to apologise.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When a Member sits down, as the Secretary of State has just done, is that not the end of their speech?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Alas, Mr Brennan, you are not in the Chair today. [Interruption.] You can sit down, Secretary of State, because I can deal with this. Secretary of State, sit down! This is a serious debate and it would help me enormously if Members behaved within the conventions and rules of the House. Do not shout at each other. Do not try to help me out—I have a Clerk who will do that, should I need it. The Secretary of State has not concluded his speech and he should not sit down until he has.
Michael Fabricant
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Might I be allowed to bring you an apple?
Madam Deputy Speaker
No. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the conventions of the House do not allow us to accept presents or to eat in the Chamber.
Michael Gove
My point was a serious one. I have given the shadow Secretary of State and everyone on the Opposition Front Bench the opportunity to correct the record. I hope that we will hear no more of the South Leeds academy and its policy of hiring unqualified teachers, taking advantage of a policy change that we made, because I have had the opportunity, thanks to your generosity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make it entirely clear that he was—inadvertently, I am sure—in error, notwithstanding the fact that I reminded him of the facts.
Kevin Brennan
On a serious point, I have attempted on several occasions to get an answer from the Secretary of State and his Ministers on what the qualifications of the teaching staff of the Al-Madinah free school were from September 2013. On each occasion, I have been told that it would be inappropriate to reveal to the public what the qualifications of the teachers were at that troubled school. If the Secretary of State is going to be transparent and open about teaching qualifications, will he promise to publish those qualifications immediately?
Michael Gove
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Absolutely; we will ensure that all the information that can be put into the public domain is put into the public domain, unless we are prevented from doing so for legal reasons. I accept the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s point. In return, I hope that he will reflect on the points that I have made about South Leeds academy—that it cannot hire unqualified teachers under its funding agreement, that the advert was for the hiring of trainees and that it has advertised in that way since at least 1982—and in due course, whenever it is appropriate, apologise to the school and to the House. Hopefully we can then make progress.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has gone to the trouble of getting a letter from South Leeds academy to make his argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has said that he has been in contact with the Secretary of State’s office constantly to get similar information about Al-Madinah, but he has not bothered to investigate that school in the same way. Why is that?
Michael Gove
We have taken significant trouble to deal with the situation at Al-Madinah.
Michael Gove
I am seeking to answer the first of the questions that the hon. Gentleman put to me. The head teacher of South Leeds academy wrote to me, but he also sought to inform everyone through a press statement at the time. Because the shadow Secretary of State wanted to make a political point without taking the trouble to check the facts, he made an error. It is because of that that I have asked him to recant.
Chris Skidmore
While my right hon. Friend is speaking of accuracy, facts and the true version of events, does he recall that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) mentioned in his speech that the head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, was opposed to the use of unqualified teachers? In an article in The Daily Telegraph on 9 December 2013, when asked whether he supported the use of unqualified teachers, the head of Ofsted replied,
“Yes I do. I have done it.”
On the record, the head of Ofsted said that he is in favour of using unqualified teachers. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore retract the statement he made in his speech?
Michael Gove
That is a very well made point.—[Interruption.] I should say to the shadow schools Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), that the credibility with which he speaks on education is undermined by what is happening in his jurisdiction. One reason why Sir Michael Wilshaw and others recognise that it can often be a good idea to employ people who do not at that time have qualified teacher status, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) pointed out, is that there are many teachers in the independent sector who are doing an outstanding job and whom we would want to have in our schools.
One of the direct consequences of the policy that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central spelled out would be that any teacher in the private sector who did not have qualified teacher status would not be able to help the state sector. Where would that leave Liverpool college? Its head teacher does not have QTS, yet it is an outstanding independent school that has been taken into the state sector under our free school programme. Would the hon. Gentleman sack the head teacher and say that decades of outstanding academic achievement are worthless because he knows more about education than the head teacher of Liverpool college?
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that, would he say the same thing to the head teacher of Brighton college, Richard Cairns, who was voted the most outstanding head teacher in the independent sector and was responsible for setting up the London Academy of Excellence? That is another free school that was set up under our programme, and it has just taken children from working-class backgrounds in the east of London, represented by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is no longer in her place, and guaranteed their accession to our best universities. Richard Cairns does not have QTS, yet he has run an outstanding independent school and an outstanding state school. According to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, he does not know his own job. Who is better qualified to lead schools, the hon. Gentleman or Richard Cairns and the headmaster of Liverpool college? Should we erect barriers to prevent the excellence that is available in the independent sector from being made available in the state sector? I had thought that the role of progressives was to spread excellence rather than ration it, but it appears to me that the Labour party has abandoned progressivism.
Michael Gove
It might, or it might not, but the point is that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said in his speech that teachers in the independent sector who did not have QTS would have to acquire it to work in the state sector. That means that state schools could not poach great teachers from independent schools, there could be no effective collaboration between them and we would not be able to lift standards in all state schools by using the expertise that others pay for.
Tristram Hunt
I was at the London Academy of Excellence on Friday with Richard Cairns and its excellent headmaster Rob Wilne, both of whom expressed great support for Labour’s policy of focusing on continuing professional development and raising the status and enhancing the standing of teachers. If I were the Secretary of State, before I talked about the London Academy of Excellence I might actually go and visit it.
Michael Gove
I note that the hon. Gentleman did not respond to my point about Richard Cairns not having QTS, and that he did not take the opportunity of returning to the Dispatch Box to apologise for stating things in the House that were not true. We will draw our own conclusions about his reliability as an expert witness.
Nadine Dorries
As someone who was educated in the state sector and had the privilege of being able to send some of my children to independent schools at some stages, it has always amazed and upset me that independent school children have had the advantage of a different standard of teaching. I have seen that many teachers in the independent sector have not been formally qualified, but they have brought huge inspiration, expertise and skills from their own field. The children have benefited hugely, as the results show.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under Labour policy, no state school could poach an outstanding teacher from an independent school. It would put restrictions on getting the best teachers from the independent sector into the state sector, which makes no sense at all.
I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has a passion for independent schools, having attended one, but he says that he also has a passion for what he calls the “forgotten 50%”—those pursuing vocational education. One problem with his policy is that if we were to implement it, we would be going against the Wolf report on vocational education, which his two predecessors accepted. It stated:
“Many schools believe that it is impossible to bring professionals in to demonstrate/teach even part of a course without requiring the presence of…salaried teaching staff”
or qualified teaching status.
“This further reduces the incidence of high quality vocational teaching, delivered to the standards that industries actually require.”
What happened to the forgotten 50% when the hon. Gentleman was coming up with his policy? He forgot about them.
This morning, Professor Alison Wolf appeared in front of the Select Committee on Education and said:
“I would be desperately sorry if the result of this…move”—
by Labour—
“was to actually make it harder, indeed impossible, to get vocational experts into the classrooms to teach their own subject and show their own expertise, because they are the ones who motivate. The fantastic vocational teaching that you see is done by people who have actually worked in the area, can talk to kids and know what is going to happen and know where it is taking them.”
A direct result of the hon. Gentleman’s policy is to knock one of the principal props of Alison Wolf’s report, which is improving the quality of vocational and technical education for the so-called forgotten 50%—and yet he does not care.
The hon. Gentleman should listen to someone who has been Education Secretary and knows exactly the importance of bringing in the maximum amount of talent and what helping working-class children involves. When the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) was on “This Week” in October 2013, he spoke to a musician, Nicola Benedetti, about the importance of securing music teachers who had real talent. He said:
“I think music is a specialist subject. My worry is that many children won’t have the opportunity to learn to play a musical instrument. If you find someone who is a great musician but they can’t spend three years getting the proper teaching qualifications, I think you should use them.”
I agree with him.
Mr Graham Stuart
When we questioned Alison Wolf about this issue this morning I asked her about a study, which I suggested to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) should be carried out before such a policy is implanted. She said:
“I think it’s important to do that and particularly in respect of vocational courses. I remember a case where in Texas they did something similar and the main people who got sacked were, I am afraid, what they call shop-teachers.”
Is there a danger that we will take out those who are re-engaging people in the classroom, re-engaging children and helping them with vocational courses, if the Labour party does not, at the very least, commit to a piece of research before going ahead with this policy?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right on both counts. First, the Opposition’s policy would be destructive of high-quality technical education, and secondly, there is not a single shred of academic evidence that could be adduced by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central in support of his policy.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the importance of continuous professional development, but he did not refer to the network of teaching schools that we have established and the brilliant work they are doing. He referred to the Prince’s Teaching Institute, but did not quote what its leader, Bernice McCabe, said this week when she thanked the Government for restoring the status and prestige of teachers, which had been undermined by the previous Labour Government. He made a comparison with what the General Medical Council does with the revalidation of doctors, but what he did not do while talking about professionalism, is his homework. The whole point is that many doctors, like many lawyers, are either self-employed or in partnerships. Where they are directly employed in the public sector under management in hospitals, those who run the hospitals perform the process of revalidation, exactly like headmasters do in schools. That is not by using an external body, but by doing it internally.
I am all for making sure we have employers who are capable of ensuring high-quality continuous professional development, but the truth is that we do have them—they are called head teachers. The hon. Gentleman’s policy does not trust head teachers sufficiently. He want to undermine their autonomy over whom they can hire and whom they can fire, and he wants to undermine their autonomy to choose the type of continuous professional development and evaluation that they believe is right for their teachers.
I know that when I talk about autonomy the hon. Gentleman will say, “Aha. There he is again. Gove is talking about structures, not standards.” Indeed, in his speech he said that he believes in standards not structures. Let me quote from a book called “A Journey”, written by a mutual friend of ours:
“We had come to power in 1997 saying it was “standards not structures” that mattered…This was fine as a piece of rhetoric; and positively beneficial as a piece of politics. Unfortunately, as I began to realise when experience started to shape our thinking, it was bunkum as a piece of policy. The whole point is that structures beget standards.”
How a service is configured affects outcomes. Of all the people qualified to teach Labour politicians how to run and reform public services, there is no one better than the author of those words: Tony Blair. That is why we are implementing Blairite progressive policies, but unfortunately, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is taking his cue lines from the National Union of Teachers and the educational establishment. That is why everyone who believes in driving quality up, reforming education, and a progressive future for children should reject this nonsensical, ungrammatical and regressive motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There is a time limit of six minutes—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Would Members like to sit down? I have been in this House for a very long time. In all that time—since 1987—it has been the convention that, when the Speaker is on their feet, Members resume their seats. It helps proceedings enormously.
There is a six-minute time limit on all Back-Bench speeches, starting now.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, have been in the House a very long time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The conventions are what they are. [Laughter.] I respect all of them. They make this a charming place to work.
I am speaking in favour of the Opposition motion, but I will try to be reasonably balanced. My 10 years as Chairman of the Education Committee or whatever it was called taught me that we have made a lot of sound and fury about the differences between the Conservatives and Labour over the years, but an awful lot joins us together in policy development over the period.
I say to the Secretary of State that the debate is an important one. I have a great deal of respect for him, but his speech exemplified the Walter Mitty attitude he puts over to the world. I know that, in his heart and in his brain, he loves education and the job of Secretary of State, and that he is passionate about driving standards up. However, the way in which he often puts his case in the House and outside drives everyone mad. He spoke for more than 20 minutes, and I tried not to make an unhelpful intervention. There were lots of party political jibes and counter-jibes. A lot of people out there who are interested in education want Government and Opposition Members to address the issues. They want us to say, “Look. There are important challenges. Together, we can get it right.” I am getting to the age at which I am intolerant of the argy-bargy that goes on in such debates. On today’s performance, the Secretary of State was the one who lowered the tone—I say that even though I respect him.
Let us concentrate on the quality of teaching. There is a great deal of stuff out there on the priorities. I still go to more schools than most Members of Parliament. My great hobby and passion is going to schools and assessing them. When I became Chairman of the Committee, I did not know how to read a school. Only when I did my first inquiry into primary education did I learn. Really good experts took me into schools and said, “This is how you read a school. This is how you can be conned by the up-front presentation.” I got a kind of Ofsted inspector’s short course on ascertaining the quality of a school and have gained a lot of experience.
There is a lot of codology. I assure hon. Members that they can go to schools where somebody on the staff will say awful things such as, “You realise that we can’t teach here. We’re just social workers.” It drives me mad when they say that. The fact is that all good teachers look at the child holistically. Many of a child’s barriers to learning are found in a bad home environment or the lack of the English language. Children have a complex range of challenges to surmount to learn.
Another thing people say is, “What do you expect us to do with the children in an area like this one?” They suggest that, because there is a great deal of poverty and deprivation, children cannot be taught. One of the great things about Sir Michael Wilshaw as a chief inspector is his ability to say, “When someone says that to you, look to the school.” He can say to the head teacher and staff, “Funnily enough, there is a school not far from here”—it could even be on the other side of the country—“with exactly the same social composition in the neighbourhood. It is doing so much better than you. What is the reason for that?” That is why I am a great admirer of Sir Michael Wilshaw. I hoped that the Secretary of State, in his speech today, would have said what had happened last week to make a modest man, who I have known for a long time and who ran one of the best academies in the country, so angry as to accuse the Department for Education of briefing against him. It has been said outside this House, but I have not heard the Secretary of State explain why the chief inspector was driven to make that statement in The Sunday Times.
We depend on the inspectorate to drive up standards. It is key to knowing the quality of teaching in our land. If we do not have an inspector and an inspectorate that does the job properly we are in trouble. The inspectorate is not perfect. I think it is well led at the moment: the chief inspector is excellent and he has a core team. He still struggles with something that I think goes back to 1972, which is that many people believe that Ofsted inspectors are independently trained within Ofsted. They are actually—
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate. One hundred and forty years ago, Benjamin Disraeli said:
“Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.”—[Official Report, 15 June 1874; Vol. 219, c. 1618.]
His words are as true today as they were at the time.
I am glad that the shadow Front-Bench team grasp the central importance of teacher quality to driving up standards in our schools. However, I doubt I am alone in feeling that today we are living through the parliamentary equivalent of groundhog day. Almost exactly three months ago, the Opposition secured a debate on this topic. The House will remember that during the course of that debate I challenged the shadow Secretary of State to supply the evidence showing that employing non-qualified teacher status teachers in our state schools was damaging children’s prospects, or to provide examples of head teachers who were taking on unqualified teachers just to save money or sticking them with low-achieving children. If that evidence was produced, we could then review the impact of non-QTS teachers on educational standards and consider, on that evidence, whether to outlaw them. There was no answer to my question.
Ahead of the speech made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), I was confident that he must have uncovered compelling new evidence on the importance of QTS—that he and his team must have been working through the night to provide devastating proof on why QTS is so vital, and why teachers without QTS should be forced out of a job. I challenged him on that again today and he had no answer.
When I asked the hon. Gentleman at least to consider conducting an inquiry to find evidence before making a decision, he suggested that I was partial because three months ago, and again today, I took issue with him on this matter. If I appeared aggressive in doing so, it was not because I sit on the Government Benches. I could list the issues on which I disagree with the Secretary of State and on which I am happy to challenge him in this House. However, when the Government are right and the Opposition are putting forward an irresponsible policy that is wrong, it is my duty to challenge it.
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. If there is an iron-clad link between possession of qualified teacher status and automatic success in pedagogy, why does the part of the country with the highest proportion of unqualified teachers, inner London, have the best state education, and why are two schools with 100% QTS teachers in Stoke-on-Trent in special measures?
Mr Stuart
I thank the Secretary of State. The point, if the shadow Secretary of State will listen, is that the evidence is anecdotal. To bring in such a change, if one believes in evidence-based policy making, the hon. Gentleman should do the work first, gather the evidence and make sure he is doing the right thing before outlawing these teachers.
Over the past 48 hours, I have asked any number of experts what studies have been conducted into the quality of QTS teachers as opposed to non-QTS teachers. I have spoken to the Education Committee Clerk to see whether the Committee is aware of any studies, to academic experts such as Alan Smithers at the university of Buckingham, an adviser to my Committee, to the Institute of Education and to Ofsted, but none could identify any empirical surveys in this area.
I turned, then, to the teaching profession itself and contacted the principals of several academies in Hull to hear about their experiences. I spoke to people such as Dr Cathy Taylor, the head of the Sirius academy, who told me that her school employed five teachers without QTS out of a total teaching strength of about 87. Those five include excellent teachers in art and maths, both of whom are completing their teaching qualifications, Members will be delighted to hear, but they also include specialists in ICT and salon services. The Sirius academy has a strong professional development programme, and Dr Taylor was clear that she would never employ more non-QTS staff than could be properly mentored within the school.
I also spoke to Andy Grace, the principal of the Boulevard academy. He does not employ non-QTS teachers on permanent contracts, but the academy employs peripatetic, non-QTS staff to provide expert tuition in fields such as sport, art and music, helping to stretch able students.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is calling for research into this subject, but he will remember that the Education Committee’s report, “Great Teachers”, urged the Government, as a matter of importance, to undertake such research. I am not aware of their having carried it out. Will he take this opportunity to repeat that request to the Secretary of State?
Mr Stuart
I would welcome such research, but the fundamental position of the Secretary of State is that, within a strong accountability system, we should trust head teachers. The number of non-QTS teachers is reducing. There are many fewer now than when Labour was in power, and the shadow Secretary of State’s refusal in successive debates to acknowledge that is mildly irritating. We have fewer of them and there is strong accountability, yet we keep hearing this proposal to get rid of them.
That point echoes the comments by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson):
“If you find someone who is a great musician but they can’t spend three years getting the proper teaching qualifications, I think you should use them”.
He gets it; it is a shame that the Opposition Front-Bench team do not appear to do so. When it comes to the evidence for their campaign, the Opposition are quieter than the library of a Trappist monastery.
Is the shadow Secretary of State in favour of evidence-based policy making? I know that he would not want to score political points if it were to hurt our children’s education. He has had three months since the last debate to find evidence that non-QTS teachers are damaging schooling. He has had three months to find evidence that moving a teacher without QTS to QTS on the job improves learning in their classes. Has he found any evidence? If so, where is it? Why does he not share it with us? If he could point us in the right direction, I am sure my Committee would be happy to pursue the matter. If unqualified teachers are doing harm, let us move fast to get rid of them.
Tristram Hunt
The Chairman of the Select Committee will know, from the work of Andreas Schleicher of the OECD, that data from the programme for international student assessment have made it clear that educational jurisdictions with the highest qualified teachers—from Finland and South Korea to Singapore and Shanghai—perform most effectively. Can he give us the evidence that unqualified teachers are the route to improving standards and closing the attainment gap?
Mr Stuart
Before teachers without QTS, whose number has reduced, are removed from the system, the shadow Secretary of State needs to show why that is a good idea. When Charles Parker, the chief executive of the Baker Dearing Trust, came before the Committee this morning, he said of people who taught in university technical colleges, including those with PhDs: “They’re amazing people, they are highly professional, but they may not be highly professional in the sense of being qualified teachers.” Before they are got rid of, let us check that there are not more good than bad; let us ensure that they are not doing good. If they are doing good and the hon. Gentleman gets rid of them, it will damage not just his conscience, but the education of the children whom he is duty bound to protect.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman has to make an impact in his new brief, and to secure his place in the shadow Cabinet. It cannot be easy having to mollify the resurgent left of his party, let alone the trade unions which bankroll almost every aspect of his party’s actions. However, I urge him not to put politics ahead of the evidence, and I know that he would not put ambition ahead of principle.
For those of us on the Back Benches who are trying to work out how best to improve educational opportunities for our constituents, this debate is bizarre, and I ask the shadow Secretary of State to change his policy.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Although when I was shadow Secretary of State I enjoyed working on a cross-party basis with the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), I have to say that his speech was unnecessarily partisan and did not add to the merits of this important debate.
This debate is about how we can both raise the quality of education and narrow the achievement gap. We have all welcomed the improvement in results, and, in particular, the fall in the number of schools that are below the floor target. That is of huge benefit to our society and our education system. However, the Demos report, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), is of great concern. It shows that if we take inner London out of the picture, we see a worsening position—a widening of the achievement gap between those from the richest backgrounds and those from the poorest—and that must be of concern to Members in all parts of the House.
How can we change the position? I think that the big challenge for all of us who have been engaged in education policy in the House, in government or in opposition, is to step back as politicians and policy makers, and to empower teachers and school leaders to lead that change. I welcome the motion, because it is about the profession leading change, and in my short speech I want to refer to some of the teaching pioneers who are already doing that.
The brilliant organisation Teaching Leaders is seeking to create the middle leaders of the future who can ensure that our schools improve, particularly those that serve the most deprived communities. ResearchED 2013 was set up as a grass-roots project by people who loved education and loved teaching, but felt detached from the education debate. They came together to create a national conference for teachers, researchers and others who were interested in how we inform the way in which we teach our children, in drawing out the best of policy theory and practice, and in finding out what works in the classroom. Then there is the long-standing and brilliant work of subject associations. When I was an Education Minister, I once went to the Geography Association’s Easter conference. Teachers were attending it voluntarily, during their Easter break, and were exchanging in a passionate way their interest in, and information about, their subject. That, I think, must be the way forward, but how can we best get to where we want to be?
There is a great deal of discussion about what happened under the last Government, but I think that we did some fantastic things to empower teachers. The Secretary of State mentioned Teach First. I am proud to have given Teach First the go-ahead when I was a Minister, 11 years ago. Its aim is to attract the best and the brightest graduates to teaching, and then to empower those teachers to use the latest research and evidence to inform their classroom practice. The sponsoring of academies was intended to ensure that the best teachers went into the schools that served the neighbourhoods with the greatest social and economic need. The London Challenge has succeeded in changing a position in which London schools were below the national average, to one in which London has the best-performing secondary schools in the country.
However, we also got some things wrong. Sometimes we were too centralist. We directed too much from Whitehall: there was too much of a “The Department knows best” approach. My former boss, Baroness Morris—Estelle Morris—said this week that the danger of such a centralised approach was that while the policy might be
“designed to empower teachers and raise the status of the profession, it was seen as being owned by the government and not by the profession itself.”
That is why I think that the movement initiated by the profession in favour of a royal college of teaching is vital, and deserves the cross-party commitment that it has attracted so far. I believe that it could represent a significant step forward for the teaching profession.
Stephen Twigg
I am grateful for the extra minute. That is what I was about to do.
It is absolutely right that the movement is independent of Government and independent of politics. I ask the Minister: if, and only if, the royal college comes to the Government to ask for financial help on start-up costs, will the Government consider providing that start-up support? We want something that is independent, but if it needs that help when it is getting set up, can they give it that support?
I want to make a point that I have made before and that is incredibly important. The countries that have been most successful in education have often forged a cross-party consensus and a wider consensus in society about education and its role. Look, for example, at Germany, and at the technical and vocational education system in Switzerland. Switzerland has a national centre for the use of evidence in education. A number of people, particularly John Dunford but also Baroness Morris, have put forward that idea, whose time has come. I called for it two years ago, when I used the title “Office for Educational Improvement” and the Secretary of State’s response was, “We already have such an office—it is called the Government.” I took that in good humour but I do not think that that is a good enough answer.
Part of the problem with education in this country, under successive Governments of different parties, is that the line between education and politics has been drawn in the wrong place. Politicians rightly decide how much money should be available, how it should be divided and the legal structure for education, but I do not think that politicians should get involved in the pedagogy and the curriculum. The professionals should lead on that and I believe that a centre for evidence could play a crucial role in delivering that. I welcome the opportunity today for a serious debate about how we enhance teacher professionalism, and promote greater continuing professional development and the opportunity for teachers themselves to lead that, but let us also say that evidence can play a much bigger role in education policy.
The morale of the teaching profession matters. It is undoubtedly the case—the Secretary of State needs to acknowledge this—that morale at the moment in school classrooms is low. Despite having this fantastic generation of teachers and results getting better, morale is low. He has to accept the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) that sometimes the Secretary of State’s rhetoric, in this place and outside, has contributed to that decline in morale. I hope that that is something that he can reconsider.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
As the OECD and Members in the debate have highlighted, teachers are the most important resource of any school. On these Benches, we support greater professional freedom and autonomy for our schools and teachers while also ensuring that every parent has a guarantee that the school their child attends meets certain core standards of teaching and care. Liberal Democrats want every pupil in every state-funded school to benefit from the coalition’s slimmed-down national curriculum and freedom from overly centralised Whitehall regulations. We also believe that parents want and expect their child to be taught by a qualified teacher.
Although our two parties in coalition have differences of opinion in these areas, by working together, we have taken great steps to encourage the best graduates into the profession. We have massively expanded Teach First and made more scholarships and bursaries available to help to recruit the most talented graduates with the potential to be brilliant teachers in key subjects. The teaching schools network will help to support the lifelong learning of teachers. I welcome the fact that more than seven out of 10 new teachers now have a first or upper-second class degree, the highest proportion ever recorded, as the Secretary of State noted. Teaching is attracting more of the country’s top-tier graduates.
More and more teachers are being publicly recognised for their contribution to society. Around one in 10 of all honours last year were awarded to people from the world of education. The rising status of the teaching profession is reflected in the comments of the former editor of The Times Educational Supplement, Gerard Kelly, who wrote last September:
“Contrary to most reports, teaching in Britain has never been in better health.”
He added:
“Most encouraging of all are the widespread acceptance that a ‘satisfactory’ education isn't really good enough and the determination of schools and teachers to take ownership of their profession, sharing ideas and best practice in ways unknown only a few years ago.”
Yet there is still more that can be done, led by the profession, to support teachers once they enter teaching. Continuous professional development must be of a consistently high standard and relevance to enable teachers to update and refresh their pedagogy and subject-specific skills. While there is undoubtedly good practice in the provision of teacher CPD—as the Government’s White Paper “The Importance of Teaching” highlighted—too little teacher training takes place on the job, and too much involves compliance with bureaucratic initiatives rather than working with other teachers to develop effective practice. The White Paper states that two thirds of professional development involves passive learning, such as sitting and listening to a presentation.
The teaching profession itself is best placed to develop a system of CPD beyond initial teacher training, and to make clear what teachers should expect throughout their careers. It is preferable for the profession itself to lead and design that process, rather than Whitehall imposing a model, and a royal college of teaching would be an obvious body to do that work. A royal college of teaching could provide a strong voice for teachers to press the case for their ongoing professional development, including promoting time and resources, and perhaps also acting as an accreditor of CPD activity so that high standards could be promoted. The role of the Government in establishing a royal college of teaching should be minimal; its establishment should be driven by the profession. However, the Department for Education could help to facilitate its creation, perhaps by offering discussions over roles that the college could take on from the Department and perhaps by providing arm’s length financial backing.
Another way to support CPD is by ensuring that each teacher has an individual CPD plan, subject to regular review and providing both an entitlement to and an expectation of ongoing training based on their own needs. Schools would ensure that each teacher had such a plan, and Ofsted could play a role in reviewing their effectiveness. We also need to ensure that we get the maximum benefit from the Government’s support for the Education Endowment Foundation. The EEF is supporting important research and practice that could deliver innovation in classrooms to address the needs of disadvantaged children. I would like Ministers to discuss with the EEF whether it could play an even greater role in evaluating and disseminating the application of research to classroom practice.
Teachers want the opportunity to enhance and update their own knowledge base, but I have reservations about a relicensing system on several grounds: I believe it risks being an over-bureaucratic box-ticking exercise; I worry that the focus will be on removing a few of the weakest teachers in our schools rather than on providing positive encouragement for all teachers to become great teachers; and I am concerned about the implications for head teachers if an external body were to overrule a head teacher’s judgment as to whether a teacher was deemed to be suitable.
I welcome the focus today on raising the status of teachers in our classrooms. We must keep that debate at the centre of our thinking if we are to expect all of the nearly 450,000 teachers in classrooms to achieve their very best on behalf of the children they teach, and if we are to build on the positive progress made by the coalition Government.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I very much welcome this debate and the emphasis that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has placed on teaching standards and quality. Teaching is a tough job, and those who devote their lives to helping children deserve our respect and admiration. I think we all remember the particular teachers who inspired us. I remember Jack McLaughlin, my English teacher at Holyrood secondary school in Glasgow, who taught me more about the love of words than anyone else I have ever met. So, good teaching can be inspiring, but poor teaching leads to lack of opportunity and to unfulfilled lives.
Just before Christmas, Ofsted produced its annual report. In it, a table shows the proportion of children in each local authority who go to good or outstanding schools. It shows that primary school children in my local authority area of Wolverhampton have a lower chance of going to a good or outstanding school than those living anywhere else in England. If that is not a call to action, and a call to arms, I do not know what is. Wolverhampton does have some good and outstanding schools, and some excellent, inspirational teachers. In places, it also has strong leadership that is intolerant of failure. As the Ofsted table starkly illustrates, however, it does not have enough of those things. That means that too many local children are not getting the education they deserve and are being denied the opportunity to make the best of their lives.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend explain why Ofsted has not intervened in that case?
Mr McFadden
I am coming on to what I would like from Ofsted in that situation. Nothing is more important for opportunity and social mobility than a good education. Mediocrity, low ambitions and a weary acceptance of failure cut off opportunity for young people. We need a strong determined response to this report and its verdict. What should the elements of that be? First, there is no point in shooting the messenger. We cannot confront a problem if we deny that we have one. We must accept the verdict and vow never to be in such a position again. Improving education standards should be accepted as the single biggest challenge facing the city. It should become a cause that unites everyone—schools, the local authority, the university, employers and the local MPs.
Secondly, we must set this discussion about deprivation and the attainment gap in the right context. There is an attainment gap. Of course teaching kids from a deprived background is tougher than teaching kids from homes full of books and with the social capital to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central referred.
It can never be right to blame deprivation for educational failure. There are plenty of areas in the Ofsted report with deprivation levels as high as, or higher than, Wolverhampton that have significantly better achievement. Apart from the Ofsted table, there is another more fundamental reason why we cannot use deprivation as an excuse—it absolves us of the responsibility to act. It writes off the children and gets everyone else off the hook, and that is a dereliction of duty to children who need, more than anyone, the opportunity that a good education brings.
I do not believe that children in Wolverhampton are any less able than children from anywhere else. They should never be written off or be told, as I have been told, that
“our black country kids are not that academic.”
I will never believe or accept that.
What are the other elements of a turnaround? We need good leadership. We know that the people who know best about turnarounds are the good leaders already in our schools. We need more of that, and we need the good schools to mentor the struggling ones to help them raise their game.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) talked about London Challenge and the huge success that happened right across London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of addressing the problems in Wolverhampton would be to have that whole system and a thorough investment in skills?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman says that they have had it. I am talking on a much more extensive scale.
Mr McFadden
I agree. The previous Government had a black country challenge for precisely those reasons, and the Secretary of State did not continue with it, which is a great shame given the support that we need.
Apart from good leadership in schools, the second thing we need is that the local authority function to challenge standards and improve must be carried out with passion and a determined focus on school improvement.
Thirdly, we need curiosity and a willingness to learn from what has worked elsewhere. If that means changing the way we do things, then so be it. The only vested interest that matters in this is the vested interest of the pupils themselves. Nothing should get in the way of improving the opportunities for them.
The school environment has changed. The clock cannot be rewound. The future landscape will inevitably be a more varied one, and we must learn from the turnaround experience elsewhere.
My fourth point is directed at the Minister so that she addresses it in her wind-up. Areas that accept a verdict, such as that of Ofsted, as I have urged Wolverhampton to do, also need help in turning things around. There is not unlimited school improvement and turnaround capacity in every part of the country. As I said earlier, we should not shoot the messenger. However, it is not enough simply to pass damning verdicts and then walk away. If Wolverhampton responds by saying that it accepts the verdict in the Ofsted report, understands that there is a problem and wants to turn things around, the Department for Education and Ofsted have a duty to play their part in helping the city to do that.
I have already arranged to meet the regional head of Ofsted to discuss the matter in the next couple of weeks and I know that relations between the Department and Ofsted have been damaged by the events of the past week. I want the Minister to address this specific point: will she and the Secretary of State back Ofsted in a role that involves not just passing verdicts on schools but helping areas such as the one I represent to turn the situation around and improve opportunities for the future?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman is giving an outstanding speech and I agree with almost every word that he has said. He has given me the opportunity to place on record my admiration for the work that Sir Michael Wilshaw has led to ensure that HMIS—
Michael Gove
I will ignore that comment.
I am grateful to Sir Michael for the work that he has done in ensuring that HMIS can play a role in school improvement. Another thing we need to do is ensure that we have more national leaders of education deployed. If the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) would like to invite me to visit his constituency to ensure that that work can advance, I would be delighted to accept.
Mr McFadden
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, and as he has expressed his admiration I would encourage him to tell his Department and those who work for him of that too.
I believe that we should respond to the report and not with the usual series of excuses for educational failure, but by saying that the only interest that matters is that of the pupils themselves. They deserve the best, they deserve the highest ambitions and they must never be written off. I hope that Wolverhampton is up for the challenge, but the city will need help to turn around. I hope that the Secretary of State will follow through on what he has said and give us the help we will need.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I echo the remarks made by the shadow Secretary of State, who said that we should put our differences aside and start the debate in the spirit of bipartisanship. It might be helpful to put on the record what we can welcome and agree on. We can welcome the fact that the number of unqualified teachers has fallen by 3,000 since 2010, down 20% from a high of 18,600 in 2010. We can also welcome the fact that the proportion of unqualified teachers has dropped in academies from 9.6% of all teachers in 2010 to 4.8% today. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) was absolutely right to talk about Teach First as one of the great successes of the previous Government, and it is booming. In 2015, there will be 2,000 graduates from Teach First, four times as many as in 2010. This year, the No. 1 destination for Oxbridge graduates is teaching, and we should all be very proud of that fact.
We should welcome the establishment of School Direct, under which 9,580 teachers are being trained in a school setting. The success of School Direct is highlighted by the fact that demand far exceeds the number of places. There was demand for 17,700 places, so I hope that the scheme will grow. It has been proven to have a far better retention rate than a university-based PGCE.
We should welcome the 363 teaching schools that have been established, just as we should all welcome the fact that the Government have limited the number of resits for teacher training tests in English and maths. Previously, people could take that test—and someone did—50 times. We are ensuring that the PGCE qualification is far more rigorous than it has been. We should welcome that, just as I welcome the statistic that has already been mentioned: the proportion of teachers with degrees at 2:1 or higher rose from 48% in 1998 to 62% in 2010 and is now at 71%. That is a collaborative success between this Government and the previous Government in driving up standards in teacher training and teacher qualifications.
I also welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s support for performance-related pay to reward excellent teachers. He has done that in the face of opposition from unions and from some of his Back Benchers. It is a brave stance and he deserves credit for it.
For all our agreement, we are stuck on one problem like it is a broken record. We had this debate back in October, and the shadow Secretary of State seems to fall into a dogmatic, ideological approach that could come from the pages of George Orwell, saying “QTS good, non-QTS bad,” as though QTS has magical properties and bestowing it on teachers will somehow make them excellent. We know that we cannot bottle good teaching and inspiring teachers by slapping on “QTS”. Such a requirement would also restrict the very head teacher freedoms mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby that we want to encourage.
Andrew Percy
Does my hon. Friend find it bizarre that we hear a lot of noise from the Opposition about how we should be following international examples such as Finland and Singapore, which have very high teaching standards, when in fact the non-PGCE QTS qualification that teachers would gain under the shadow Secretary of State’s policies would not qualify as a teaching qualification in those countries?
Chris Skidmore
That is a good point and I welcome its being placed on the record.
Another problem is the Labour party’s definition of “working toward QTS” including a two-year cut-off. I would appreciate the shadow Secretary of State putting it on the record whether the axe would come down at the end of that period. Would the 14,000 who are still unqualified simply lose their jobs because they had not gained QTS in that period?
There is an elephant in the room in this debate in respect of QTS, which is that there are plenty of bad teachers who have QTS. The problem is that defining a good teacher as one who has QTS is nothing short of protectionism. The General Teaching Council estimated under the previous Government that there were 17,000 teachers with QTS who were underperforming and should not be in the classroom, but in the past 15 years, and even up to this day, we see bad teachers not being removed from the classroom or sacked, but instead being managed out. Up to 2010, only 18 teachers had been removed altogether from the teaching profession for poor teaching standards. What we see is this “dance of the lemons”—teachers moving from one school to another, into deprived areas, which are the areas that suffer the most. That is a national scandal. We need transparency—
Chris Skidmore
I will come to that in a moment, but we need transparency so that we can work out these teacher flows. I encourage the Government to establish a review to find out the patterns of where poorly performing teachers are not removed, but instead go to the worst performing schools in the most deprived areas of the country.
The shadow Secretary of State shouted from a sedentary position about revalidation. I want to ask him some questions about the process. He has stated that it should happen perhaps every three years—
Chris Skidmore
According to the time frame I have seen in the media, it is possibly every three years. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say how often the revalidation process should take place. We have 500,000 teachers in place; how many of them will have to go through the process, and how often? Who will administer the process? Will it be led by Ofsted or by head teachers? Surely revalidation happens all the time—that is the role of the school leadership team and the head teacher. Adding the process of revalidation simply adds extra bureaucracy. Would the hon. Gentleman make extra resources available to schools to continue the re-evaluation process? What will the paperwork look like? These are all valid questions to which teachers watching this debate need to know the answers.
The hon. Gentleman compares teacher revalidation with what happens with doctors and consultants, but consultants’ revalidation is very different from doctors’ revalidation. Will there be a revalidation process for head teachers and one for Ofsted inspectors? All these questions need to be considered. Will teachers who fail the process lose their qualified teacher status altogether? Will there be revalidation in the private sector?
Mr Graham Stuart
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s explanation of validation, and hope he can continue for another minute.
Chris Skidmore
I much appreciate that intervention, which came right on time.
In this debate about QTS, it is important that we as a House and the public know exactly how revalidation—or “teacher MOTs” as the process has become popularly known in the papers—will operate. What is the time frame? What are the consequences of failing the revalidation? Will it take place within schools? If so, what is the point of all this? Is it simply to slap on a party policy? I am not against revalidation, because I believe that it already exists, as we have given the school leadership team and head teachers the power to lead.
The key point here is that we trust head teachers to be commanders, captains of their ships. The shadow Secretary of State looks at me scornfully. He clearly does not believe in giving head teachers the power to run their schools. If a head teacher wants to employ a teacher without QTS, I have no problem with that, because I trust that head teacher to make the right decision, and head teachers should have that power. That is the crux of this debate and why I will oppose the motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. To allow every hon. Member who wishes to speak to do so, the time limit will be reduced to five minutes, although it may be necessary to review that later. I call Nic Dakin.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The best teachers want to be better teachers. What is changing fastest is the young people themselves and the world that they are being prepared for, both as young people and in the future as citizens and workers. Today, very young children are adept at using a tablet computer, and anyone who goes into a primary school will see electronic devices being used to access information, to draft written text creatively or to make video clips or other inventive things. The world is changing rapidly and teachers need to change too. Pedagogy needs to move with the times. The best teachers have always wanted to be better teachers. That is why in my 30-plus years of what was the chalkface and is now the technology interface, I have always seen teachers talking to each other, keen to share and develop, and keen to learn in the interests of their learners.
Politicians, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) said in a quite brilliant speech, need to be careful in the way they talk about these matters. They need to talk about the real world, not the world of fantasy classrooms, and about what is actually going on out there. Politicians would do well to start by understanding and celebrating what is going on in teacher education and ongoing teacher development. It is worth understanding how important high quality initial teacher training is in getting recruitment right. We have debated this before, and the Government’s obsession with School Direct is imperilling effective teacher recruitment and induction. It may well be that one of the Government’s achievements is to preside over not only a school places crisis, but a teacher supply crisis as well, while continuing with expensive, unproven pet projects.
There is a huge amount of excellent practice in schools and colleges, which any consultation on ongoing teacher development should capture, recognise and build on. Every hon. Member who has spoken has paid tribute to the work of teachers throughout the land, and I add my tributes, but it is important to understand the role of induction and support in teachers’ early years. When I was a principal, I always said to staff that supporting a new teacher effectively was one of the most important jobs they did. Get it right and the benefits are huge. Get it wrong and the problems are massive. We need to recognise how appraisal works at the moment, how the process to support staff going through the threshold works and how the ongoing process of keeping evidence of personal development that is commonplace in our schools and colleges works. Anything new needs to build on this. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) was right: we need to build on what is there to avoid unnecessary bureaucratic problems.
People do not want unqualified doctors to operate on them, so it is hardly surprising that parents do not want unqualified teachers teaching their children. It is about professionalism. Some Government Members seek to suggest that by giving someone qualified status the problem has been solved, but that clearly is not the case. This is about recognising the role of professionalism and professionalising the future in a way that secures the future.
The things that are important in terms of ongoing teacher education are subject knowledge—I have never come across a teacher who does not want to improve their subject knowledge—pedagogy; which is challenging and moves rapidly, particularly at the moment; assessment; and leadership, because many teachers will have leadership roles. Unless school and college leaders are committed to teacher improvement, it will not happen.
Michael Gove
I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished figure in further education. Does he agree with me, with the shadow Secretary of State and with Amanda Phillips, the head teacher of a school in Tower Hamlets who recently wrote so passionately about the subject in The Sun, that we need performance-related pay for teachers in order to ensure that we have more effective continuous professional development?
Nic Dakin
My personal view is that performance-related pay rarely works in any sphere of life; all it tends to do is push up the cost of pay without tackling the real issues. I think that separating pay and performance is helpful, because we need to focus on getting performance right. If teachers are not up to scratch, we need to tackle that as a separate issue. I have dealt with that myself. Any good school or college leader will do that day in, day out—it is not easy, but it is done. The link between pay and performance, in my experience, is unhelpful more often than not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby listed the pioneers. I could add to that list, but time is short. I merely draw attention to the strength of his argument, which needs to be listened to.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), my erstwhile colleague on the Education Committee, who spoke passionately and, for the most part, compellingly. I agree entirely that teaching is a noble profession and a vocation.
I also agree with three key aspects of Labour’s motion. First, it is obviously right that the quality and effectiveness of a school system cannot exceed the quality and effectiveness of the teachers in it. Secondly, those teachers must be able to access the best possible training and ongoing development, and not just in subject knowledge, but in classroom management, lesson planning, progress tracking and all the other things that are so important. Thirdly, I agree about the importance of validating and revalidating teachers’ effectiveness, because if we want to raise the bar and improve the overall level, we cannot wait for a turnaround in all the generations of teachers. I disagree on exactly where and how that validation should happen, however, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore).
There are also three important deficiencies in the motion. First, in its headline emphasis on qualified teacher status, it refers to a very small proportion of teachers. It is often said that no one forgets a great teacher. Sadly, most of us can also remember at least one who was pretty rubbish. I mean that not as a value judgment or a political point, but as a statement of fact; some teachers are better than others, and some are just not very good at teaching. That person we remember was almost certainly a qualified teacher. According to the 2012 work force survey, 96.5% of teachers were qualified, which means 3.5% were not, and the figure is now lower than it was under the previous Government. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the part of the country that does best in education is the part with the highest proportion of non-qualified teachers, and—to add another little fact—four fifths of them are not on a route towards QTS.
Secondly, the motion is logically inconsistent. If QTS is an irreplaceable standard that every teacher should reach before being let loose in the classroom, how can it possibly be acceptable to have someone teaching who has only just begun the route towards QTS? Thirdly, the motion’s critical deficiency is that it conflates two words that sound a bit the same but are completely different: “qualifications” and “quality.” I note that the conflation extends even to the hallowed institution of our democracy, the Order Paper, because two days ago it referred to a debate on teacher qualifications, but today that has morphed seamlessly into a debate on teacher quality. Either subject would have been an important and interesting subject for debate, but they are completely different topics. That is the fundamental problem here.
I do not expect a sudden flood of teachers who have not done a PGCE or other qualification to come into teaching. When Mary Beard appeared before the Education Committee, she talked about Jamie’s dream school—I hate to bring it up again—and, when asked what she would have done differently, said, “A bit of training would have been nice before going in to teach the kids.” What an understatement. Of course, an individual going into teaching, let along the school and the parents, wants to know that they have been properly trained to cope with the situation.
There are, however, circumstances in which somebody has a lot to give, and in which taking the necessary time out for full retraining—something like a PGCE—would put them off. They might be someone who has taught for years in a private school, a university lecturer, a business leader who goes in part-time to do lessons in entrepreneurship, or an artist, musician or actor with unique skills and creativity. I want such things to be available to kids in our state system.
Private schools educate only 7% of children in this country, but they account for 32% of AAAs at A-level. There are differences between private and state schools, the biggest of which is in the resources of money and facilities that are available. One of the others is the freedom accorded head teachers, reporting to governors, about who they employ and how they run their school. We have a rigorous accountability regime for exams, Ofsted and pupil choice. Within that framework, a head teacher, reporting to their board of governors, should be able to decide the direction in which their school goes. There are things we should focus on to improve teacher quality.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the focus should be on the quality of education for children in schools, as opposed to the quality of delivering paperwork to be revalidated?
Damian Hinds
I absolutely agree.
We can do other things further to raise teacher quality; that is what the title of this debate turned out to be. The first of those concerns Teach First, which accounts for a relatively small proportion of the overall teaching work force. It is heavily concentrated—half of all Teach First teachers are there—in London, which has come up more than once today. It has what I call a positive disruptive influence in schools in bringing in new ideas, in new teachers learning from teachers it already employs and those teachers learning from new ones and, importantly, in increasing the pool for recruitment and selection. Head teachers often say that having more people, including fresh graduates, applying for jobs helps them a lot. We need greatly to expand Teach First outside London.
Chris Skidmore
Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that when, this morning, I met and spoke to the chief executive officer of Teach First, Brett Wigdortz, he talked about its tremendous success in the city close to my constituency, Bristol? Teach First has now established centres there, so regionalisation is taking place as we speak.
Damian Hinds
I very much welcome that. Teach First is also doing good work in Bournemouth, a coastal town that has had particular issues. We should look at what impact it has had there—
Damian Hinds
And in Ipswich, but I want that to be done on a big scale in Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and all the other places where we can make a big difference. We now have Teach Next, and it would be nice to have “Teach Later” so that people towards the end of their careers in business or academia who want to come back and give something back to schools can do so.
The second critical thing we could do is further to develop performance management and performance pay. That has been well covered by other hon. Members and, as time is short, I will not bang on about it.
The final thing I want to mention—I apologise to erstwhile Select Committee colleagues, because I have frequently banged on about this in the past—is how teaching is such a high stakes profession and is such a high stakes commitment to make. When people do their PGCE or undergraduate degree, the assumption is that they will do the job for life. There are very few careers left in this country for which that is the case.
We ask, “How can you tell a great teacher?” The answer is that we cannot: we cannot tell from a paper qualification, QTS, degree results or anything else, but we know it when we see it. That also goes for the individual considering teaching. We need a heavy emphasis in teacher training and accreditation on classroom performance. We also need more taster sessions, in which sixth-formers or undergraduates considering doing an undergraduate education degree or a PGCE get an opportunity to teach in a classroom and figure out if it is right for them.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I have now been an MP for 17 years. Before that, I was a teacher for 15 years in a Catholic primary school with 550 children. For every one of those 15 years, I was on a professional development course, whether a diploma or a master’s—I never actually finished the master’s course—in Welsh, media, science, computing, religion and a variety of other courses. That did me a power of good: I loved it and the children benefited from it.
We have to look at the pressures on children today. Many of the facts and figures that I will give have come from parliamentary answers to questions that I have tabled. Children today check their phone six times an hour or every 10 minutes. That is 600 times a day and over 200,000 times a year. My hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) mentioned the positive aspects that the digital age has brought to teaching, but it has also had negative effects. Young people make constant comparisons through Facebook and Twitter. It has brought cyber-bullying. A young person watches 180,000 adverts by the time they are 18. Those adverts give mixed messages that confuse children. The fashion industry tells them to be size zero; the fast-food industry tells them to go large. The cigarette industry, the sugar industry and the fat industry are all targeting young people. That is having an effect on their bodies and on their minds. In America, 8% of children are physically addicted to computer games.
In this country, 32.3% of 16 to 25-year-olds have one or more psychological condition. They have those conditions when they are doing their GCSEs, A-levels and degrees. Two per cent. of that age group have severe attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and 9% have mild to moderate ADHD. How can young people learn when there are such massive pressures on them? It does not get much better for 25 to 35-year-olds. Thirty per cent. of them have one or more psychological condition. Any training course that we provide for teachers needs to recognise that.
A key element that could help young teachers and young pupils is mindfulness. Mindfulness is a way of breathing, relaxing, expressing gratitude, gaining balance and equilibrium, and gaining focus and attention, all of which could help people in their education. It also improves people’s social skills, develops their character and helps them to flourish as young individuals.
I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for establishing the measurement of well-being in 2010. However, what is the point of having that measurement if we do not reflect on it and use it? We ought to concentrate not just on people’s academic side, but on their social side. Mindfulness can help with both.
There have been 22 international studies on mindfulness. A British professor, Katherine Weare, has made a fantastic assessment of that evidence base. I ask Ministers to make their own assessment. Britain is ahead of the rest of Europe on mindfulness in education. Oxford, Cambridge, Bangor and Exeter are all centres of excellence. Professor Willem Kuyken, Professor Felicia Huppert, Professor Katherine Weare and Professor Mark Williams are the cutting-edge scientists who have proven the science behind mindfulness. They have proven its contribution to health to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. We now need to assess its contribution to education.
Mindfulness is gaining traction around the world. Tiger Woods, the golfer, uses it. The executives of Google, Facebook and Twitter use it. The executives of Goldman Sachs and Transport for London use it. There are even 70 MPs and Lords in this Parliament who have had training in mindfulness in the past year.
The health effects of mindfulness are scientifically proven and they can be proven in respect of education. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) for the positive attitude that she has shown on this matter in Adjournment debates. I ask the Secretary of State whether he, too, will look at the evidence and see whether mindfulness can be used in education.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
This debate has the entirely laudable aim of raising the status of teachers. There has been a need to do that ever since George Bernard Shaw said “those who can’t, teach”, to which Woody Allen added that those who can’t teach, teach PE.
I have to begin with a confession. I began teaching without any teaching qualifications. Having left university with a philosophy degree, I took a job with Liverpool city council as an estate manager. At that stage, Liverpool city council thought that it needed to employ graduates, but it was apparent after a week that neither the council nor I knew exactly what I was supposed to do. I saw an advertisement for Warwick Bolam secondary modern school in Bootle and within a week I was teaching 11 to 16-year-olds in what was a surprisingly good and well-run school. I had to learn quickly on the job because the tradition in Bootle was that the children felt obliged to play up and the teacher had to demonstrate that they could exert control. Failure to do so was a route to a nervous breakdown, resignation and a pretty unhappy life. The children actually preferred not to mess around, but the onus was on me to demonstrate that they could be prevented from doing so.
After two quite happy years in the classroom, I was sent a letter by the Department of Education and Science, as it then was, saying that I was a qualified teacher. By that time I had moved on to Salesian high school, also in Bootle, which had become a comprehensive school, where I taught English, history and social studies. The last of those was a new subject introduced for embittered 15-year-olds who had been badly affected by the raising of the school leaving age and were disgruntled to be there, but it worked.
It gets worse. I was then asked to take on A-level sociology, which I believe to be a much underrated and misunderstood discipline. Unbelievably, I helped to revise and set the extremely testing and highly theoretical A-level syllabus and exams for the Joint Matriculation Board. The students’ A-level results were pretty good—in line with, or better than, their grades in other subjects.
After a happy and successful decade, I moved to a top independent school as head of religious studies, also teaching some Latin, neither of which subjects I had taught before. Only towards the end of my career did I teach philosophy at A-level, which was what my degree was in. In the meantime, I had done a diploma, an MEd and even, for no apparent reason, a course in teaching maths, which I found interesting rather than of any real use in the classroom.
I therefore clearly cannot argue credibly that teacher training is either a sufficient or a necessary condition for being a good teacher. Indeed, I would probably argue that an effortless grasp of some subjects, such as that shown by brilliant mathematicians and the like, often equips people poorly to explain them to lesser mortals who are struggling to comprehend them. I believe that teacher training can help, inspire and provide a fund of ideas that the grind of day-to-day teaching might not. It cannot provide commitment and dedication, which are indispensible to successful teaching, but it can do much that is good.
I refer hon. Members to the recent, surprisingly enlightened, CBI report on our education system, “First steps: a new approach for our schools”. It argues that good schools are those that are well led and have clear and challenging targets, but that have considerable flexibility in how they organise themselves and their staff, and that even an enlightened Secretary of State should back off. It seems to me that today’s teachers would welcome that. They have a prodigious, often unnecessary administrative load, and they are already assessed rigorously in every school worth its salt. To add a national scheme of revalidation for every teacher, as proposed by Labour, seems to me overload on top of overload and would not be welcomed by the profession. It is likely to annoy good professionals, to no real effect. Continuing professional development—we are up for that. However, Government teacher MOTs would simply produce clones, not charisma, if successful and further de-professionalisation and more of a tick-box culture if unsuccessful.
Michael Gove
I intervene just to say that my hon. Friend is making an outstanding case and I would love to hear more.
John Pugh
Well, I am going to close, because other Members want to speak, but the CBI states that the approach that we are taking towards education is rather like the conveyor belt approach abandoned by industry in the 1980s, and we simply have to get away from it. I will finish by quoting the CBI—I do not suppose I will do that many times in my political career. It stated that head teachers and teachers
“are professionals—we should treat them as such”.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Teachers are very special people. They have the future of our children in their hands, and those children need the best teachers that we can train, motivate and value. Although valuing them has been a theme today, we in Britain do not generally value the professional people we hand our children over to, and we should be ashamed of that. As politicians, we often fail to give our communities a lead by telling them why teachers should be valued and how crucial they are to our future.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State—I am sure he will not intervene on me, and I would not accept the intervention—makes regular statements recognising that we have the best teachers ever. Most of them were trained, I would remind him, under the last Labour Government. His betrayal of them, however, is in assuming that almost anybody can march into a classroom and teach our children, which is wrong. I for one believe that teachers should be required to fulfil a proper training programme that leads to a professional qualification, before we stick them in front of a class on their own.
We must ensure that our education system is designed to deliver the skills and knowledge that the young people of today will need to succeed tomorrow, and a crucial requirement of that is ensuring that their teachers are fully equipped and professionally qualified. Education is a dynamic field, but it cannot be greater than the sum of its parts unless teaching as a profession is equally ambitious, and continually strives to improve and provide the skills that our young people need and our employers demand.
To deliver great teachers at all levels we must boost the status and enhance the standards of the teaching profession, attracting the very best—we have done a bit of that recently—the brightest, and the most able into the profession. The first step along that path is to ensure that our teachers are rigorously trained to the highest standards, and that the merits of the qualifications are properly recognised. Without such a step it is impossible to guarantee consistency or the quality of teaching, which in turn jeopardises the entire worth of education.
That teachers must have a first-rate knowledge of the subject and curriculum in the areas they teach is beyond any reasonable argument, and for precisely that reason, teaching should remain a graduate profession. However, possession of subject knowledge is not, of itself, a satisfactory safeguard to ensure the highest possible standards. Making certain that all teachers undergo such training before entering the profession would put minimum standards in place to ensure not only that teachers are in possession of a solid knowledge of the subject matter, but that they understand the associated educational and teaching values that promote high standards of planning, monitoring, assessment and class management. Achieving qualified teacher status confirms that a formal set of skills, qualities, and professional standards, recognised as essential aspects of an effective educator, has been achieved.
Alex Cunningham
I will not.
I am in no doubt that all schools should impose the same rigorous criteria and requirements when appointing teaching staff. Only then can we be certain that young people across the board are afforded the same high standards of education. We currently have one of the best generations of teachers we have ever seen—an opinion backed by Ofsted—and there are numerous examples of great teachers in cities, towns and villages across the country. It is right that we celebrate their success.
Dr Richard Spencer, who teaches at Bede sixth-form college in my constituency, was recently named as one of only 10 teachers in the Science Council’s list of 100 leading practising scientists, adding to the various other honours that recognise his contributions as an excellent teacher. It is important that we learn the lessons from such success stories, spreading best practice to every school, teacher and young person across the country, to drive progress and look at new ways to attract high-calibre candidates into the profession.
Despite the Secretary of State acknowledging the importance of teacher prestige, and the Prime Minister citing research that reveals that teacher quality is the single most important factor in educational progress, I feel that focus has been lost. The coalition has ridden roughshod over teaching standards, downgrading the status of teaching by allowing unqualified teachers into classrooms on a permanent basis. Shockingly—special educational needs co-ordinators aside—there are no requirements for state-funded schools to employ qualified teachers. Although figures vary from school to school, I was appalled to discover that as many as three-quarters of teaching staff in some schools are unqualified.
Unqualified teachers who have not undertaken the same initial teacher training as those achieving qualified teacher status may find themselves ill-equipped to cope in instances involving pupils with behavioural issues, for example, or special educational needs. Although they may be an expert in their subject specialism, that does not negate the need for the vital hands-on classroom experience required to meet properly the needs of those in their care.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I want to highlight four issues that explain why I am against the Opposition motion. The first is that inspirational teachers come to the classroom through many routes, and sometimes the most unconventional backgrounds can be the most inspiring to pupils. The second is the importance of trusting and empowering heads to be the leaders they are appointed to be under the “use them or lose them” principle. Third is the importance of embracing working and learning in today’s global environment, and fourth is the critical need to bridge the worlds of education and industry if we are to compete successfully in that global race.
I like to think that, like me, every child who goes through education has a truly inspirational teacher who has an influence on them for the rest of their life. For me, it was the lady who taught me German during my final years at school. There were four of us in our A-level class. She was a truly remarkable woman and I learned as much from her about character as about language. Being German, she could convey the language well, but what was truly remarkable about her—it is fitting to mention this this week as we remember the holocaust—was that, as we understood it, she and her father had helped Jewish children to escape from Germany to Britain during the second world war, and then had to leave the country. That gave her an understanding, which she conveyed through language and literature, of compassion and common humanity, of endurance and perseverance, of selflessness and humility, and of the right priorities for life. I have never forgotten. She taught me that no insignificant person has ever been born, that every individual has the capacity to make a remarkable difference, and that we should all strive to do so. When she arrived in this country, she had no relevant qualifications for teaching here. She had the life she had lived, which was worth far more than any paper certificate when she was teaching us.
That brings me to my second point—giving heads the discretion to appoint the best staff for their school and allowing them the freedom to exercise leadership in the role entrusted to them. For almost 20 years, I was governor of a small inner-city independent faith school in one of the most deprived areas of Salford. It was started as a home school by an inspirational teacher, who found other parents asking her to take in their children. She took on a building—the Victorian building where the first ragged school in Manchester was housed. She taught those children and led many of them to become doctors, teachers and other professionals.
When she needed a physics teacher, she found one from somewhere—someone who had retired or someone from business. She did similar with music teachers and teachers of many other subjects. She provided a special education in a small class environment. Most of the children would never have flourished had they gone to schools elsewhere in the city. They needed that individual help and support. Her dedication enthused and pervaded the whole school. To have inhibited her from exercising that initiative and from appointing staff of her choice would have been a travesty and a tragic waste of her leadership skills.
Thirdly, we talk about working, living and competing in a global environment, and about preparing our young people for that. In that case, we must pay more than lip service. Increasingly, many of our school leavers travel abroad to get a business degree from Maastricht, or for a soccer scholarship at James Madison in the USA. A large number of those people will feel led to pass on the benefit of their training to younger children. Why should they not do so following the example of the qualified football coach employed by St Mary’s Church of England primary school at Dilwyn, who was appointed to teach PE at key stages 1 and 2; the professional actor appointed by Langley free school in Slough as a drama teacher; or the professional singer appointed there to teach music?
Chris Skidmore
That is the nub of the argument. Slapping on QTS as a compulsory requirement will put off many people from a variety of professions from entering teaching, which would be a tragedy.
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in that connection, I want to talk about the importance of strengthening the relationship of the educational environment we provide for young people with the world of work, which is critical if we are to give young people sufficient information for them to make the right career decisions. In order to do so, they need to make an early choice of subjects and to have inspirational teachers who understand the world of work and have experience of it.
Stephen McPartland
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to reduce the gap between education and employment, and focus more on employability, so that we can reduce youth unemployment?
Fiona Bruce
That is exactly the point I am making. We must bridge that divide. Connecting children from the start of secondary school or even earlier with people who have been involved in the world of work, who can inform, encourage and inspire them, is what we need.
Many teachers come from backgrounds that children would never otherwise have an opportunity to understand. On the bridging of the cultural divide between education and the industrial world, a former leader of an Asda sales team is teaching business studies at Priory community school in Weston-super-Mare and is head of upper school. He is bringing the world of work right into the classroom.
Bridging education and industry is key. It would be wrong to inhibit schools that are intent on appointing enthusiastic teaching staff with knowledge of the world of work simply because they lack a piece of paper headed “QTS”.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
In 1997, when the Labour party came to power, one of its key mantras was “education, education, education”. In the years to 2010, the Labour party spent an enormous amount of money investing in education: on schools, textbooks and pay to raise teachers’ morale. The educational qualifications and standards in our schools improved tremendously. That is not the end of the story, however, and there is still more to be done. This debate on the training of teachers should be seen in the context of the continuous need to improve the education of our children.
The Secretary of State started his speech by going through a literal interpretation of the Opposition motion. When I trained as a lawyer, we were told that judges have three approaches to interpreting legislation: the literal interpretation, which the Secretary of State was alluding to; the golden principle, where legislation is applied in a liberal way; and the mischief rule, which asks, “What is the mischief that the law intends to deal with?” The mischief we want to deal with in this debate is that we have teachers in our schools who are not qualified properly.
I accept fully that there are some teachers without qualifications who are brilliant. I also accept that there are people with qualifications who may not be as good, or even competent. That does not mean, however, that we should not continue to strive for what I call the gold standard, which is providing training to our teachers. A young teacher, or someone who has just qualified or graduated, may be excellent in their subject matter and have a first class honours degree, but the reality is that in most of our junior and secondary schools they will be faced with classes of 25 to 30 children, perhaps with various levels of learning. To set their classes, to deal with the issue of how to control the classroom, to identify which child may need extra help, and to look at pastoral care and whether a child is being neglected at home—those are all part and parcel of a teacher’s work. If teachers are not qualified and have not received training on these issues, how will they be able to identify them? How will they automatically be aware of what to do? That is where the importance of having some kind of training—we could have a debate on how long training should last—is surely crucial. I am therefore surprised that Government Members, in particular, are deriding the idea that teachers should be trained.
Members might think this is a bizarre example, but we would not let people operate on us if they were not fully qualified. A person might say, “Look, I’ve been in hospital for 10 years and guess what? I’ve done all sorts of things. I didn’t pass my exam, but, because I know what I’m talking about, allow me to operate on you.” We would not accept that, so why are we willing to make that compromise with our children’s education? We accept that what we are trying to achieve will not stop the expert, the talented musician or the singer coming in and giving children lessons, but our provisions concern day-to-day teaching in a classroom, where the teacher will be there for a long time working with the children. The qualification needs to be good.
Members talked ad nauseam about private schools not having that many qualified teachers, or that they can do without them. One has to understand that private schools have a different standing. Most of the kids come from middle class, well-educated families who look after them at home. Those children are going to do very well most of the time in any event, so comparing private sector schools with state schools is wrong.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The most successful education systems, from the far east to Scandinavia, are those where teaching has the highest status as a profession. South Korea recruits from its top 5% of graduates and Finland from the top 10%, and both have demanding initial teacher education programmes, completion of which is required for entry into the profession. So why not in this country?
According to Ofsted, an
“outstanding teacher generally has exceptionally strong subject knowledge and exceptionally good interactions with students and children, which will enable them to demonstrate their learning and build on their learning. They will challenge the youngster to extend their thinking to go way beyond the normal yes/no answer. They will be people who inspire, who develop a strong sense of what students can do and have no limits in terms of their expectations of students.”
During its inquiry into teaching, the Education Select Committee took evidence from children who told us that the ability to make lessons engaging and innovative and to keep discipline in the classroom were priorities.
In the 2007 study, “How the world’s best-performing school systems came out on top”, McKinsey found that
“a high overall level of literacy and numeracy, strong interpersonal and communication skills, a willingness to learn, and the motivation to teach”
were pre-identified characteristics used in successful education systems around the world for the recruitment of teachers. Those skills identified by our international competitors, Ofsted, McKinsey and our children need to be developed. To make the most of those skills, teachers need ongoing support and development, and that is the point of tonight’s motion.
Michael Gove
In that context, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the shadow Secretary of State and me that performance-related pay would be a way of supporting that continuous professional development?
Bill Esterson
When an Education Minister came before the Committee, they ruled out the introduction of performance-related pay.
Evidence to the Select Committee shows that, especially for children who lack support at home, the difference that a good or outstanding teacher can make compared with a mediocre or poor one is startling. For all pupils, there is a GCSE grade difference of more than one for those taught by the best teachers compared with those taught by the weakest. Research from Harvard and Columbia universities suggests that children taught by the best are more likely to participate in further education, to attend better colleges, to earn higher salaries and to save more for retirement.
We also have evidence from London Challenge of the difference that can be made by sustained investment in teaching and school leadership. The system of support and mentoring across London under the last Labour Government saw London’s schools move from below the national average to being the best in the country. The London Challenge included a significant emphasis on support and coaching for teachers and school leavers and led to a culture change across schools and the city—one in which many staff bought into the idea that their pupils would benefit if they worked on their own teaching performance.
As well as good teachers, we need good leaders. In any organisation, it is the leadership that sets the tone for how the staff operate, and schools are no different. Having a good leader who can get the best out of everyone is vital to ensuring that teaching is of the highest standard. Good leaders in schools can support unsatisfactory teachers and help them to become good, and those same leaders can inspire good teachers to become outstanding.
Teachers have told me that they should continue to work on their skills but that the profession should be driving the improvements, rather than having them imposed on it. Of course, that makes sense. If we help teachers to continue to develop throughout their careers, they are more likely to do so, which is why my hon. Friend is suggesting that we work with and be led by the profession. If teachers believe in what they are doing, they will be committed to their own development, and those same teachers told me that being qualified was a vital first step to ensuring the best standards in our schools. Subject knowledge is essential to the teaching of a subject, but it is not nearly enough.
I told the House earlier what Ofsted had said, what McKinsey had found, and what children have said that they want. All the evidence points in the same direction: those who want to be teachers need to be trained properly. Their training must ensure that they understand how to teach and how to enable children to learn, and—as most teachers tell me—it should continue, as an element of their ongoing desire to do the best that they can for the benefit of our children.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
We last discussed this issue during the week after the broadcast of the last episode of the series “Educating Yorkshire”, and we are now discussing it during the week after that documentary was rightly recognised at the National Television Awards. However, notwithstanding the widespread recognition that it has received, the Secretary of State is still unable or unwilling to recognise the key fact that anyone who watched it—and, indeed, anyone who has spent any amount of time in schools and in the company of good teachers—knows all too well: that being a teacher is not about teaching a subject, but about teaching the class of children in front of you, and about supporting the development, academic or otherwise, of each child in that class.
Teaching is a test of pedagogy, not of memory. Deep knowledge is good, but it means nothing if a teacher cannot impart it in a meaningful way to all the children in the class, and for no group of children is that more important than those with special educational needs. During the three years for which I was a shadow Minister with responsibility for SEN, I engaged extensively with stakeholders large and small throughout the country, and the one observation that I heard time and again, from teachers as well as others, was that teachers are not given enough training in SEN as it is, during either their initial training or their continuing professional development. The fact that the Education Secretary thinks that someone who has had no training whatsoever is a suitable person to unlock learning for children with SEN is incomprehensible to me, and is surely contrary to all the best advice that he must have received.
Given the severe cuts in central local authority education teams, which include specialist teachers and workers such as educational psychologists who can provide peripatetic support, it is more important than ever for classroom teachers to know how to teach the entire class in front of them, not just the high achievers. Figures from the Department for Education, published last week, show that the attainment gap between SEN and non-SEN children is widening at GCSE level. That applies particularly to the EBacc measure, which is completely inaccessible to many children with SEN. That is a subject for an entire debate on another occasion, but suffice it to say in the present debate that more than one in four young people without an identified special educational need achieved the EBacc last year, compared with fewer than one in 20 with SEN.
The Government’s top priority must be to close the gap by improving outcomes, and the best way of doing that is to improve the quality of teaching rather than undermining it. The parents of children with SEN will rightly expect the people to whom they are asked to entrust the education of their children to have the capability and qualifications that will enable them to fulfil that role.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I speak as a former teacher and a former schools inspector, and as someone who returned to teaching. I spent many hours helping students who were engaged in teaching practice, newly qualified teachers, and those on the licensed teacher scheme. It is a real challenge to face, each day, six or seven groups of 30 pupils—as many as 210—some of whom do not want to be there, and some of whom are bound to want to cause trouble for a new teacher.
Qualified teacher status is vital. First, if we do not require it, we may risk causing significant damage to some children’s education, and inspections may not reveal that damage until two years after a school has been set up, which may be much too late. Secondly, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), we can all continue to learn and to improve our teaching techniques. More important, however, qualified teacher status can be part of the continuing professional development that features time and time again throughout a teacher’s career. That is why the revalidation of teachers is so important. It should be not just a requirement, but a right. It is nothing new; we have had appraisals, and we have had thresholds. Those things are important because they relate to the status of teachers throughout their career.
Fundamental to Labour’s plans for revalidation is consultation with the profession. Teachers, more than anyone, do not want to work alongside those who are sub-standard. They do not want to have to teach a class who have lost their motivation because the teacher who has just left the classroom was not up to standard. Therefore, we want to help those who are struggling, to help teachers to update their skills, but also to make it clear that updating skills is a requirement, not an optional extra. Most teachers in the profession would accept that.
We want criterion-referenced, not norm-referenced, judging of teachers. Norm-referenced means that one has to fail 5%. Criterion-referenced means that, if they reach the standard, that is the standard that we want. If they are good teachers, they can continue. Criterion-referencing should be the fundamental basis for any form of revalidation.
We also want to foster collaboration, not competition, within a school and among neighbouring schools. That was one of the successes of the London Challenge. We should avoid divisive policies where one school wants to outdo the school next door for marketing reasons and to do it down. If we are going to have genuine professional development among groups of schools, we need to ensure that we have not divisive, but collaborative policies.
We also need to look carefully at what we are doing for supply teachers because often they have to cover for absent staff for quite long periods and it can be difficult to train a supply teacher on the job. Therefore, supply teachers also need to have good opportunities for development and access to training.
Newly qualified teachers who have to do supply before they can get their QTS need special attention and special help, because moving from school to school to do that is no joke. Head teachers also need to have revalidation. Leadership is key and a weak head teacher can make a disaster of a school. We need the mechanisms to ensure that we do not wait for inspection to find that out, but find it out earlier, get the help in and ensure that the school is sorted.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It has been a good debate, although bizarrely one in which we have not been graced by the presence of the Government Minister responsible for teaching. Why is the Schools Minister not here? Is it an authorised or unauthorised absence? Will he be fined, as many parents are being fined around the country, for playing truant? We know that he is deeply conflicted about whether teachers in taxpayer-funded schools should be qualified. Last time we discussed the issue, I likened him to Odo the Shape-Shifter from “Star Trek: Deep Space Nine”, but now having dissolved back into his bucket he seems to have re-emerged as the Invisible Man. The truth is that we have a part-time Schools Minister who is absent because he is performing his other job in the Cabinet Office of trying to hold the coalition together. He should be here in the House, answering for his policies in the Commons—even if he does not agree with his own policies, which when we last checked appeared to be his position.
The Government once tried to convince us that they understood the importance of teaching—they even released a White Paper with that title—but everything that they have done in office has been about an ideological obsession with structures and an easy headline about numbers of academies and free schools. They have undermined and neglected the teaching profession, alienated hard-working qualified professional educators and sent the morale of the profession into the cellar.
Last year, a survey conducted by YouGov found that 55% of teachers described their morale as “low” or “very low”. That figure had risen from 42% in just eight months. Sixty-nine per cent. said their morale had declined since the 2010 general election. Only 5% thought that the Government’s impact on the education system had been positive.
It may be that, for some of the lunatic fringe that the Secretary of State has employed as special advisers, those figures are fine because in their view teachers are just Marxist troublemakers, but they could not be more wrong. When YouGov asked teachers their voting intentions at the last general election, 33% said they would vote Tory, 32% Labour, and 27% Lib Dem. Actually, teachers—I think I am the only member of either Front Bench in either House who used to be a school teacher—are a politically moderate, sometimes conservative group of swing voters. However, the Secretary of State has worked his magic on them with his advisers. That important group of middle-class swing voters now says in the latest poll on teacher voting intentions by YouGov that the support among teachers for the Conservatives is down from 33% to 16%, the support for Labour is up from 32% to 57%, and the Lib Dems—actually, if their Minister cannot be bothered to turn up, I cannot be bothered to read out the figure. Let us just say that they are now neck and neck with the Greens and behind UKIP.
Teacher morale matters. Teachers’ professional status matters. The OECD has said in its PISA reports that schools in countries with high teacher morale
“tend to achieve better results”.
Teacher morale matters, not just politically but, more importantly, for the education of our country’s children. So why does the Secretary of State not understand that, by undermining the profession with his “anyone can teach” dogma, he is undermining standards in exactly the same way as they were undermined in Sweden?
Kevin Brennan
Not at the moment.
We all remember the Secretary of State’s infatuation with the Swedish model. He even wrote about it in The Independent newspaper, under the headline “Michael Gove: We need a Swedish education system”. He was saying that we needed free schools—eventually to be run for profit, presumably, as in Sweden—and unqualified, low-paid teachers. His praise for Sweden was effusive. He went on to say that
“what has worked in Sweden can work here.”
We do not hear much about Sweden from him now. I think I can say, without fear of being accused by the statistics authority of abusing the PISA statistics—unlike the Secretary of State, who was rapped on the knuckles for doing so when talking about the PISA statistics for this country—that Sweden has plummeted down the PISA tables after pursuing the very reform programme that the Secretary of State is now adopting in this country, including the use of unqualified teachers. Perhaps the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), might like to look at that evidence with his Committee. Sweden is now as invisible in the Secretary of State’s speeches and articles as the Schools Minister is in this debate on teaching.
It would be helpful if the Government were willing to tell us what qualifications the teachers have in the schools that are causing concern. I have asked him about the Al-Madinah free school in Derby. On 16 October last year, in response to a parliamentary question about the qualifications held by teachers in free schools, I was told:
“Data on each qualification held by each teacher is not collected.”—[Official Report, 16 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 746W.]
I thought that that could not be right, so on 18 November 2013 I asked whether the Secretary of State would
“publish in anonymised form the qualifications held by each member of the teaching staff at the Al-Madinah Free School”
at the beginning of last September’s term. I was told:
“It would be inappropriate to publish any details until the Secretary of State for Education has concluded the next steps in this case.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 729W.]
On 6 January this year, when those next steps had been taken, I asked again for details of the qualifications. I was told that it would be “inappropriate” to publish any details of staff qualifications. On 14 January, I asked why it would be inappropriate, and received an answer simply repeating that it would be inappropriate to answer the question.
Lloyd George was once driving around north Wales and he stopped his car to ask a Welsh farmer for directions. He said, “Where am I?”, and the farmer replied, “You’re in your car.” That is exactly the method used by the Department for Education to answer parliamentary questions. The answers are short, accurate and tell us absolutely nothing that we did not already know. The Secretary of State said today that he was going to release that information, and I know that he will do so because he is a man of his word. I look forward to receiving that information tomorrow.
A YouGov poll has shown that 89% of parents do not want their child to attend a school whose teachers do not have professional teaching qualifications. Before the Secretary of State goes on again about unqualified teachers in the private sector, he might want to reflect on the fact that the latest Ofsted report shows that 13% of schools in the selective fee-paying sector were judged “inadequate”.
As our motion says, no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers. Before I finish, I want to turn briefly to the issue of the South Leeds academy. The Secretary of State has kindly passed to me the letter that he received yesterday, which he presumably solicited ahead of this debate. In the letter, the academy accepts that it placed the advert to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) has referred, but says that it was
“placed in error by a new and inexperienced clerical assistant”.
We accept that explanation. What it also says in that letter, which the Secretary of State did not highlight, is that the academy trust involved says that the School Partnership Trust Academies
“always seeks to employ teachers with qualified teaching status.”
It agrees with us, not with the Secretary of State. We should be employing teachers with qualified teacher status. He is wrong; we are right, and the SPTA agrees with us on that issue.
Kevin Brennan
I do not have the time unless the Secretary of State wants to eat into the time of his Minister.
Kevin Brennan
The Secretary of State is eating into the time of his Minister.
Michael Gove
Will the hon. Gentleman now withdraw the allegation against the South Leeds academy made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt)?
Kevin Brennan
Everything that my hon. Friend said was entirely accurate and has been confirmed by the letter. As I have said, we completely accept the explanation given in the letter. We accept everything that my hon. Friend has said, and the Secretary of State should accept that his support for unqualified teachers in taxpayer-funded schools is not supported by the School Partnership Trust Academies because it is wrong.
Given that the Secretary of State has given me some extra time, I will conclude my speech. As our motion says, no school system can surpass the quality of its teachers. That is why we need qualified quality professionals in our classrooms and better continuing professional development with revalidation to allow teachers to excel in their vocations. Yes, teaching is a vocation, as anyone who has watched programmes such as “Educating Yorkshire” or “Tough Young Teachers” or who has taught at any time in a school will know. That is why, despite the undermining of the teaching profession by the man who should be its greatest champion and advocate—the Education Secretary—teachers continue to put in hours long beyond their contractual obligations to help educate our children and build the future of this country. However, they cannot do that for ever without support and while being undermined, which is why we should strengthen, not weaken, their professional status, care about the time bomb of low morale, which this Secretary of State has armed, and pass this motion. Teachers and parents want a new direction and new leadership in education.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)
As always, we have had an amusing speech from the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), but it reflects an alternative universe, mainly informed by briefings from the National Union of Teachers.
Under this Government, we have seen a huge improvement in the standing and attractiveness of the teaching profession, which is absolutely where it should be. New people are being attracted to teaching in droves. We now have one of the youngest teaching work forces in the developed world, with the exception of Indonesia and Brazil. Three-quarters of new teachers entering the profession either have a first or a 2:1 degree, which is the highest since records began. Teach First is now the largest recruiter of graduates in our country, and the programme has quadrupled. We are also extending it to more areas of the country and into early years. We all agree that teaching quality is the No.1 factor in education, and we are determined to raise standards, which is why we have improved the skills test, making it harder to pass. We have limited the number of re-sits that teachers can take. We are paying bursaries and scholarships up to a value of £25,000 in subjects such as maths, physics and chemistry. Last year, we recruited a record number of physics trainees.
What the Opposition are saying about the freedom to hire non-QTS teachers is a complete red herring. There are actually fewer teachers without QTS now than there were under Labour. If it was such a big issue for Labour MPs, why did they not do anything about it in their 13 years of government? There is also little difference between academies, where 96% of teachers are QTS, and maintained schools, where 97% of teachers are QTS. As the Chairman of the Education Committee said, there is simply no evidence that that is a problem in our system. We recognise the importance of empowering head teachers to enable innovation to take place. We do not believe in central diktat and box-ticking, which is what we had under the previous Government. That is why we are reforming teacher pay and conditions and giving schools and head teachers the ability to reward good performance with performance-related pay, although there does not seem to be much agreement on the Opposition Benches about whether that is a good idea.
We can see that schools are using their freedom to do things differently. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright), the Sir Isaac Newton free school, which offers maths and science for 16 to 18-year-olds, has hired a psychology lecturer from the university of East Anglia to teach seminars that introduce students to complex concepts and research. That is only possible because they can hire that person even though they do not have QTS. Many schools are using subject expertise to find the extra people that they need.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) when he said that there had been too much centralisation and too much of the “invented in Whitehall” mentality. That is why we have put in place a school-led system and why we have had 50 teachers over in Shanghai learning about CPD, peer research and open-door policies from their colleagues in the teaching profession. That is why we are interested in the idea of the royal college of teaching. It must be independent and we would consider funding a good proposition, but the important thing is that it must be school-led and head teachers must be empowered to make the decisions.
Under the previous Government, we had an approach that decided that Whitehall and the Secretary of State knew best. We had centrally driven initiatives, such as the national strategies, that included chunking and told teachers how they should teach. Rather than empowering teachers, they deskilled them. As the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary has said, that led to shocking levels of English and Maths among jobseekers.
In PISA 2012, England showed no improvement in maths or reading during Labour’s period in office. Adult skills among the young people who are leaving school now are better than those for the generation who are retiring. The only good idea the Opposition had in government—academies giving head teachers more freedom—is the idea that they are keenest to deny when it comes to the crunch. The success of these schools shows the importance of freedom within a strong framework of accountability. We have already seen huge improvements since 2010, and 250,000 students are no longer in underperforming schools. We have seen a 60% increase in students taking rigorous English baccalaureate GCSEs. I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) supports them and I welcome a new pronouncement on that.
The Opposition should not be seeking to undermine those freedoms that deliver better outcomes for our young people. I urge Members to vote for the amendment, which continues the programme we have developed to allow schools and head teachers to decide how best to organise and run their schools. The whole issue of QTS is a red herring. There were more unqualified teachers in schools under Labour than there are now. In fact, the number of teachers without QTS in academies has halved since 2010.
The Opposition’s evidence is baseless and they need to think again about their policies, which will simply involve implementing more box ticking across the country.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Business without Debate
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Solar PV Panels (Planning)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, I presented a petition to Parliament on 12 November 2013 on behalf of my constituents in the parishes of Foxearth and Liston. The petition, signed by more than 700 residents of Belchamp St Paul, Belchamp Otten, Foxearth, Liston and Pentlow villages was in opposition to a proposed solar panel farm. The proposal is for up to 300 acres of 8-foot high solar panels on prime agricultural land—the highest grade in all of Essex—for a minimum of 25 years, thereby degrading the land and, most importantly, spoiling the surrounding landscape. That point is especially important to my constituents, as the proposed site is on the edge of an area of outstanding natural beauty and what is known as Constable country.
Before I get into the substance of my argument, I wish to point out that I have no objection in principle to solar panels and believe that they play an important role in our country’s future energy mix. Indeed, there is another proposal for a solar farm in my constituency that I support. It is for a 50-acre solar farm on a disused airfield near Gosfield. The Gosfield solar farm would be on a brownfield site and has the support of Hedingham and Gosfield parish councils and the wider community. I mention that alternative proposal to draw the Minister’s attention to my view of what is an appropriate site and what is an inappropriate one.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
May I echo my hon. Friend’s support for the development of photovoltaic facilities on brownfield sites? In my constituency, at the old RAF Wroughton site, the largest PV installation in Britain has just received approval from the local planning authority. It enjoys support from the local parish council and local residents, and we believe it will make a meaningful difference to local energy generation and be an important part of renewable energy capacity in this country.
Mr Newmark
I thank my hon. Friend. That is exactly the sort of site on which we should support the building of solar panels.
One of the planned solar panel farms in my constituency has the support of the local residents and the local parish councils and is on a brownfield site. The other has no support from local residents or the local parish councils and is on prime arable land adjacent to an area of outstanding natural beauty.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I generally support my hon. Friend’s view on alternative sites and I, too, support solar farms in the right place. Does he agree that when considering a solar farm we must take into account the power lines leading to that farm, and the impact they have on the environment?
Mr Newmark
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I fought a long, hard campaign in that part of north Essex to ensure that any power lines proposed were buried underground as they impinge on the environment I am seeking to protect.
Let me return to the proposal for a 300-acre solar panel farm in Foxearth and Liston as a case study for the Minister when he reflects on the planning regime for solar panels in rural locations—the subject of my Adjournment debate. A letter from the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) states :
“Inappropriately sited solar PV especially in the countryside is something that I take extremely seriously and am determined to crackdown on…support for solar PV should ensure proposals are appropriately sited, given proper weight to environmental considerations such as landscape and visual impact, heritage and local amenity, and provide opportunity for local communities to influence decisions that affect them.”
Given that excellent guidance from the Minister, given the quality of land under consideration—it is grade 2 agricultural land and protected as such under the national planning policy framework—and bearing in mind the almost unanimous opposition to acres and acres of solar panels blighting some of the most beautiful countryside, not just in Essex but in the country, the siting of this solar panel farm, unlike the one at Gosfield, is wholly inappropriate.
Unfortunately, notwithstanding the extremely helpful guidance from the DECC Minister, planning officers at Braintree district council take a very different line. Indeed, they say that the Minister’s letter is not worth the paper it is written on. They state that unless Department for Communities and Local Government planning regulations are changed specifically from those indicated in planning practice guidance for renewable and low-carbon energy, dated July 2013, to exclude grades 1 to 3A prime agricultural land, permission is likely to be given to the planned solar farms under current regulations.
In fact, the planning officer is minded to give planning permission for the initial 40-acre solar farm on the basis that the developer will abide by section 27 of the planning practice guidance for renewable and low-carbon energy, which states that
“particular factors a local authority will need to consider include: encouraging the effective use of previously developed land, that it allows for continued agricultural use and/or encourages biodiversity improvements around arrays”—
I assume that arrays are solar panels. The planning officer said that if the biodiversity condition is met, he is likely to give planning permission for the initial 40-acre plot. To my mind, that is absurd. It is absurd because he says that local objections are of little relevance and that the visual impact has little bearing on his decision, even though it abuts an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is absurd because as long as the proposal ticks his biodiversity box, such as sheep grazing among the solar panels, it is likely to go ahead.
Imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Constable painting of some of the most beautiful Essex countryside, with sheep gently grazing amid 300 acres of 8-foot high metal solar panels. That goes beyond the imagination of even the most avant-garde surrealist and Dadaist painter. I strongly believe that the planning officer should take the other points from the DECC Minister’s letter into account, which the planning officer says has no basis in the guidelines.
Braintree district council tells me that it will, under current regulation, approve the application, given that it is for a temporary installation. However, given the damage that will be done to the area, I do not believe 25 years is temporary. Does the Minister honestly believe we should be building on some of the best food production land in Essex? Me thinks not.
The provisions of the national planning policy framework requiring “a demonstration of necessity” in selecting high-quality arable land over low-quality land are too often ignored by local planning authorities. Planning authorities seem too ready to compromise on their policies to accommodate such applications, and they remain behind the curve in taking Government guidance on board. That is the exact problem in my constituency, where planning applications have been made for solar panels to be placed on hundreds of acres of prime agricultural land. The planning framework needs to demonstrate more clearly the need to spare at least grade 2 agricultural land from being covered with solar panels. I believe the guidance should direct local planning authorities to consider roof tops and brownfield sites such as the Gosfield proposal for the installation of solar panels.
Given the DECC Minister’s guidance in his letter of 14 October, more needs to be done in the legislation, not just the guidelines, to impress upon local planning authorities the importance of not building on prime agricultural land. The DECC Minister has made it abundantly clear that agricultural land must not be used for solar farms, and that such installations should be directed towards brownfield sites, and commercial and industrial roof spaces, but there is so far little evidence that his words are getting through. A clear directive to local planning authorities in that regard by the Minister is obviously overdue, and a reassessment of the incentives and sanctions should be considered. Planning authorities must be given clear instructions as to their legal obligations in that regard, such that they comply with the law.
In addition, there should be an environmental impact assessment, which for some reason is not a condition for siting solar panels in rural areas, although it would be a requirement if one of the cottages in the same area wanted to build a garage. I do not understand why 8-foot high solar panels on between 40 acres to 300 acres should not be subjected to an environmental impact assessment, especially in cases such as the one I have described, in which the environmental impact through blight is high. Nevertheless, local planning authorities often elect not to call for an environmental impact assessment. It would appear that, because the operation of generating electricity by such means is clean, does not appreciably degrade the site on which panels are situated and is “of only local importance”, no environmental impact assessment is considered necessary. In reality, such installations fundamentally alter the character and visual environment of the location in which they are situated.
Overall, Government directives and letters from the DECC Minister appear to be having little effect in countering the headlong drive on the part of developers and landowners to get into the solar farm business by taking over food producing land, especially high-quality agricultural land, suggesting that the incentives may have been incorrectly set, or that the available sanctions are not being applied with sufficient rigour. I would like the Minister to consider changing the legislation to ensure that local planning authorities can consider the quality of land, the visual impact on the countryside and the views of local people before granting permission for solar panel farms to be built.
I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm that the Government will issue updated planning practice guidance that explicitly states whether agricultural land classified as being the “best and most versatile”, meaning grades 1, 2 and 3a, is suitable for use as a solar farm? Secondly, does the Minister know of any plans to update the environmental impact assessment regulations in respect of solar farms, and specifically the criteria and thresholds for the purposes of the definition of schedule 2 development, meaning the thresholds at which the regulations suggest that an environmental statement is likely to be required in support of a planning application?
Thirdly, following publication by the Government of the “Solar PV Strategy Part 1” in October 2013, will the Minister give an update on the scheduled date of publication for the widely anticipated solar PV strategy that has previously been scheduled for publication in spring 2014? Will the advice in that document replace the current planning practice guidance?
I would like to end by thanking Braintree district councillors Julian Swift and Jo Beavis; the planning officers at Braintree district council; Nigel Harley; Clive Waite of the upper Stour valley renewable energy joint committee; and the residents of Foxearth, Liston, Pentlow, Belchamp St Paul and Belchamp Otten for their valuable input to my speech. I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to the concerns of my constituents and I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate on such an important subject for his constituents. It is a subject that he has raised with me in writing and in person, and now, rightly and properly, on the Floor of the House.
I hope I will be able to reassure my hon. Friend that there are already guidelines in place and policies in the national planning policy framework that are sufficient to support the kinds of decisions he seeks. I hope he will also understand that I cannot refer to, or make a judgment on, any particular application under consideration by any planning authority.
The policies in the national planning policy framework are clear that there is no excuse for putting solar farms in the wrong places. The framework is clear that applications for renewable energy developments, such as solar farms, should be approved only if the impact, including the impact on the landscape—the visual and the cumulative impact—is or can be made acceptable. That is a very high test. It should be approved only if the impact can be made acceptable. Where significant development is necessary on agricultural land, the national planning policy framework is equally clear that local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality in preference to that of a higher quality. Where land is designated at a relatively high grade it should not be preferred for the siting of such developments.
In addition, the framework is clear that planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas. It should protect areas with a landscape designation. It should recognise the character and beauty of the countryside and support the rural communities within it. It is very important, given the particular countryside he was talking about, that areas of outstanding natural beauty have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The framework is clear that great weight should be given to conserving them. I therefore encourage my hon. Friend to draw the attention of planning officers in his council to those elements of the framework, the clarity and the strength with which those policies are phrased, and encourage them to believe that they can assist them in their decisions.
Mr Newmark
I am listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and many of his points reflect the excellent advice given by the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) in his letter to me in October. The reality, however, is that when speaking to Braintree district councillors—notwithstanding that it is the highest grade agricultural land, grade 2, in Essex—they say that as long as a biodiversity requirement is met, they are still minded, because, unfortunately, of the current regulations, to give planning permission for at least the first 40 acres. To me and to many of my constituents, that is unacceptable.
Nick Boles
I can reassure my hon. Friend that this is planning policy: the national planning policy framework is the framework of national planning policy. Every planning decision by every planning authority in the land must abide by the policies in the framework. I do not care what he has been advised by others; I am the planning Minister, and I am advising him that this is the policy that the Government have put through the House, and we intend it to be applied in every planning decision by every planning authority in the land.
Nevertheless, because we shared some of my hon. Friend’s concerns about how these policies were being applied, we issued further planning practice guidance on renewable and low-carbon energy. To ensure that these decisions reflected the environmental balance expected by the framework and that the views of local people were listened to, we published guidance last summer that made some things very clear. We reiterated that the need for renewable energy did not automatically override environmental protections and local communities’ planning concerns. The guidance made it clear that the deployment of large-scale farms could have a negative impact on the rural environment, particularly in undulating landscapes, and set out a number of factors that a local council would need to consider before making a determination.
We expect local authorities to encourage the effective use of previously developed land, and if a proposal involves greenfield land, the guidance clearly states that it should allow for continued agricultural use, but only if it has already met all the other environmental and landscape policy criteria that are set out in the framework and which are reiterated, underlined and expanded on in the new planning guidance. I and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), believe that current policy and guidance gives every planning authority in the land the basis on which to take fully into account the landscape and agricultural quality of land.
Mr Newmark
I appreciate everything that my hon. Friend is saying, but unfortunately money talks, and this has become big business. Many planning officers are nervous, as are local councillors, that if they reject an application and it is appealed, local taxpayers might have to foot the bill. They tend to take a much more cautious—even prudent, dare I say it—approach towards planning and to err on the side of caution by saying, “Actually, we are minded to give permission”, because they do not want to risk an appeal by a wealthy business man or company.
Nick Boles
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has asked that question, because it is important that authorities across the land understand that when they make a decision that has policy support, in the national planning policy framework, and guidance support, in planning guidance, and if it is appealed, they have every right, if they are successful in resisting that appeal, to ask for their costs to be covered. They should feel confident in their decisions, where those decisions follow the policy that I have set out and which I believe is crystal clear. I should also add that it would be a brave planning officer or inspector who dismissed a letter from a Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change in the terms my hon. Friend suggested he had been advised they had to do.
I encourage my hon. Friend, if he is concerned about a particular decision, to familiarise himself with the criteria for call-in and recovery where an application goes to appeal. If he is concerned that a particular application raises issues of national policy importance—and are not, therefore, just of local importance—and in some other way meets the criteria for call-in, which are published in a written ministerial statement, he can write to the Secretary of State and request that the decision be called in for ministerial decision. That is open to him at any point. If he decides not to do that, and were the local authority to refuse an application, and were it then appealed, again he could write to the Secretary of State and request that the decision be recovered, so that it can be made by the Secretary of State, not a planning inspector. Those two opportunities are open to him.
My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be aware that there has recently been a recovery of a decision on a substantial solar farm, partly because this is a relatively new area of policy. We have been trying to strike the right balance, which is why we issued the new planning guidance, and we are keen for cases to reflect both the policy in the framework and that new guidance. My hon. Friend should not feel timid or shy about availing himself of the opportunities offered to him by both the call-in and the recovery policies.
I hope that what I have said will go some way towards reassuring my hon. Friend—and, perhaps equally important, his constituents—that they have not been abandoned, and that there is plenty of policy support for the respecting, valuing and protection of the beautiful Constable landscape that my hon. Friend described so lyrically.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Home Department
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mike Hancock
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-human primates by (a) species and (b) country of origin were imported into the UK for the purposes of scientific research in each month of (i) 2012 and (ii) 2013; and how many such non-human primates in each category were (A) wild-caught, (B) F1 generation and (C) captive-bred.
[Official Report, 20 January 2014, Vol. 574, c. 21-4W.]
Letter of correction from Norman Baker:
An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) on 20 January 2014.
The full answer given was as follows:
Norman Baker
During 2012, a total of 1,367 non-human primates were imported into the UK for use in regulated procedures. This number comprised 38 rhesus macaques bred in China and 1,329 cynomolgus macaques bred in China, Vietnam and Mauritius. All 1,367 animals were captive-bred including 676 which were F1 generation (the offspring, bred in captivity, of at least one wild-caught parent). No wild-caught animals were imported from any source. These figures, by month, are summarised in the following table.
Since 1 January 2013, when the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (the Act) was amended to transpose European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, there has been no requirement to notify the Home Office of the acquisition from overseas breeding centres of non-human primates for use in regulated procedures. Hence we do not hold any information relating to the numbers of such imports for 2013.
Nevertheless, the Act requires that non-human primates used in procedures must have been bred for that purpose unless an exemption has been granted to use animals taken from the wild. No such exemption was granted during 2013 and therefore all those imported must have been captive bred for use in procedures.
Species | Country of origin | No. of animals | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rhesus macaque | China | Wild-caught | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
F1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Total Captive-bred | 42 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 80 | ||
Cynomolgus macaque | China | Wild-caught | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
F1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Total Captive-bred | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 69 | ||
Mauritius | Wild-caught | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
F1 | 135 | 0 | 58 | 39 | 82 | 38 | 0 | 145 | 83 | 52 | 87 | 92 | 811 | ||
Total Captive-bred | 148 | 0 | 90 | 60 | 90 | 38 | 0 | 185 | 90 | 52 | 100 | 100 | 953 | ||
Vietnam | Wild-caught | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
F1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Total Captive-bred | 0 | 0 | 80 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 80 | 88 | 80 | 0 | 80 | 0 | 455 |
The correct answer should have been:
Norman Baker
During 2012, a total of 1,557 non-human primates were imported into the UK for use in regulated procedures. This number comprised 80 rhesus macaques bred in China and 1,497 cynomolgus macaques bred in China, Vietnam and Mauritius. All 1,557 animals were captive-bred including 811 which were F1 generation (the offspring, bred in captivity, of at least one wild-caught parent). No wild-caught animals were imported from any source. These figures, by month, are summarised in the following table.
Since 1 January 2013, when the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (the Act) was amended to transpose European Directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, there has been no requirement to notify the Home Office of the acquisition from overseas breeding centres of non-human primates for use in regulated procedures. Hence we do not hold any information relating to the numbers of such imports for 2013.
Nevertheless, the Act requires that non-human primates used in procedures must have been bred for that purpose unless an exemption has been granted to use animals taken from the wild. No such exemption was granted during 2013 and therefore all those imported must have been captive bred for use in procedures.
Species | Country of origin | No. of animals | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rhesus macaque | China | Wild-caught | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
F1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Total Captive-bred | 42 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 80 | ||
Cynomolgus macaque | China | Wild-caught | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
F1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Total Captive-bred | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 26 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 69 | ||
Mauritius | Wild-caught | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
F1 | 135 | 0 | 58 | 39 | 82 | 38 | 0 | 145 | 83 | 52 | 87 | 92 | 811 | ||
Total Captive-bred | 148 | 0 | 90 | 60 | 90 | 38 | 0 | 185 | 90 | 52 | 100 | 100 | 953 | ||
Vietnam | Wild-caught | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
F1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Total Captive-bred | 0 | 0 | 80 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 80 | 88 | 80 | 0 | 80 | 0 | 455 |
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Egypt
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
Before Mr Kwarteng introduces the debate, may I make a couple of comments? I think that people should know that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on defence and diplomacy in the middle east and north Africa, which I run in association with the Royal United Services Institute. In addition, I would like to report that I visited the Egyptian embassy in London on 13 December for a meeting and lunch with both the Egyptian ambassador and the strategic adviser to the current Adminstration, Dr El Mostafa Higazy. I say that simply for the record, and I now ask Mr Kwarteng to kick us off on our subject, which is the political and economic situation in Egypt.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Havard; it is a pleasure to speak on this subject under your chairmanship. I am also delighted to see several Members of the House here to take part in the debate. Looking around, I can see that a number of people have a considered and well developed interest in the region.
As far as I am concerned, the developments in Egypt are, in terms of the middle east’s long-term history and development, in many ways the most significant. Why do I say that? Egypt is very much at the centre of the Arab world. Ninety million Egyptians reside in the country and a number of other people—from Saudi Arabia, from all around the Gulf, and from across the Arab world—live in Egypt. As a proportion of the Arab world, Egypt represents well over a third of the Arab-speaking peoples. Historically, it has always been a country in which developments are looked to. Culturally, the Egyptian film industry is dominant in the region, and anyone who has travelled in the region will say that the Egyptian dialect is the most widely understood, simply because of wide media outlets and the popularity of Egyptian film. Egypt is absolutely at the centre of developments in the middle east.
Two weeks ago, I returned from a delegation to Egypt organised by the Conservative Middle East Council. It was the fourth delegation of which I have been a member since the revolution in 2011, when General Hosni Mubarak was toppled. It is only really by going back to the country over a number of years that we managed to develop, I think, an interest, expertise and knowledge of what is going on in a fast-moving, complicated situation. Our aim has been to understand better the historic events that are occurring in the country, and we have spoken to many people in the Egyptian political scene.
Unfortunately, as people will know, the Muslim Brotherhood was declared a terrorist organisation at the end of last year and has effectively been outlawed. As a consequence, in our last delegation we were not able to meet members of that organisation, but we have—I can say this openly—met them in the past. We have engaged with many members of the Muslim Brotherhood, with people in the army and the armed forces in Egypt, and with people right across the political spectrum, from the Facebookers, who initiated the first revolution in January and February 2011, to other players in more recent events.
We always thought Egypt was a binary situation—I am talking on behalf of members of the delegation—and felt that the army and the Muslim Brotherhood were by far the two most powerfully organised and structured organisations in the country. It seemed to us at the time—we documented it in our short pamphlet, “Egypt 2011: Revolution and Transition”—that the political future of Egypt would largely be determined by the relationship between the army and the Muslim Brotherhood. We saw, in effect, a temporary resolution to that dialogue in the way in which the army stepped in in the middle of last year.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Unlike him, I was not on that delegation but spent time there recently on my own. Does he accept that although the army and the Muslim Brotherhood are the main players, the vast majority of the population, particularly those outside Cairo, have absolutely no interest in the conflict and are totally committed to a resolution and a cessation of any dispute?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Naturally when we go on such delegations, we tend to gravitate towards Cairo, which is the centre and capital of Egyptian life. I might add that as a capital, it is very significant. Twenty million Egyptians live in Cairo, which is a high proportion of the total population. However, he is absolutely right that Egyptians across the country are less interested in the power dispute and are more concerned about economic stability and the future for themselves and their families. I will talk about the consequences of the dispute between the Muslim Brotherhood and the army.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I compliment the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He seems reluctant to describe what happened last year in Egypt as a military coup, which, in reality, it was. Is he not concerned that that is a precedent, and that large numbers of opposition people have been arrested in the same way as many were arrested under Morsi? There is a serious denial of many people’s human rights throughout the country at present.
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is undoubtedly the case that the army has been very heavy-handed in dealing with protesters and dissent. There is a new protest law under which people have been put away for three years simply for protesting and being out on the street. I am tentative about describing what happened as a coup, because the army’s view is very much that it was a popular uprising. The army would suggest that—I heard it many times in Cairo—although the events of February 2011 have been described as a revolution, what it feels was another revolution in June last year has been described as a “coup”. We have to be careful about the language we use.
Clearly, it is true that the army flexed its muscles at the end, but there was popular support, with Tamarod and people on the streets, so to describe what happened as a coup does not perhaps get the right tone. Generally, coups around the developing world are led from the top: a general and a few of his associates might seize power for themselves. The army in Egypt would very much contest whether a coup is an accurate description of what happened last summer and no doubt historians, politicians and diplomats will debate how to describe it for years to come. I am very reluctant to use the word “coup”, even though I appreciate that it has been widely used in the media.
The big question at the moment is how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood. Clearly the army has gone down one route, which is heavy-handed—really the iron fist. Our perception was certainly that the army was willing and ready to deal with, in an uncompromising fashion, any attempts on the part of political Islamists to use violence. It was expressing the view that it had had enough of the Muslim Brotherhood and of trying to accommodate them, and that it would handle any threats from that quarter with a great deal of repression. Those were not the words that the army used, but that was very much the indication that it gave us. There is clearly a massive problem with that, potentially, because—
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend is leading on to the point about the co-existence of the two particular factions. Does he also accept the point that was stressed to me on my visit, that the vast majority of all faiths peacefully co-exist, are friends with one another and have no dispute with one another, and that it is only the more extreme elements—for example, of the Muslim Brotherhood—that are necessarily pushing the dispute and the aggression towards the army and towards the alternatives?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The two broad groups that I have characterised—I will talk about secular parties later—are the two most powerful groups, and of course within those groups there is a wide range of views and dispositions. There are extremist elements in the Muslim Brotherhood. There are also some quite extreme repressive elements in the army. My hon. Friend is right again to say that the majority of people are trapped in the middle of those two contending and powerful forces, but I must stress that the fundamental problem with Egypt at the moment, as I see it, is that one side is simply unwilling to reach any kind of accommodation with the other.
Let us look at the elections that have taken place in the past three or four years. The one fact that has come out starkly and undeniably is the strength of the Muslim Brotherhood. I can say, as a member of the delegation that has travelled to Egypt over three or four years, that each time we asked, “How popular is the Muslim Brotherhood?” its support was underestimated; it was never overestimated. People always said 15% to 20%, but then in the elections it always performed much better than anyone had anticipated. Equally surprising was the strength of the Salafis, who got one quarter of the parliamentary seats. Political Islam in Egypt is a powerful force. What I think should draw the attention of this House and Members of Parliament is the fact that the army’s attempt to sideline political Islam is fraught with danger. That is potentially one of the fundamental causes of stress and conflict in the years ahead.
The big question is how the army will deal with acts of terror in the future. Clearly, in the past two weeks we have seen an intolerable level of violence in Cairo. We have also seen sporadic terrorist bombings. Added to that is military repression. We are entering on a particularly vicious cycle, and everyone in the west—politicians, diplomats and everyone else in the outside world—will have to take a view on that. It is obvious to me and to members of our delegation that the army is determined to impose itself as the central player in Egyptian politics. Anyone who doubts that need only look at the referendum that took place two weeks ago.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He says that the military are imposing themselves as the dominant power in Egyptian politics. Does he not agree that they are putting themselves forward as the only power in Egypt’s politics? Now it looks very much as though the general who led the coup will put himself forward for the presidency, putting the country back into a situation in which the military are in charge.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Yes, that is a broad characterisation of where we are. However, we have to accept that the army is supported by a large number of people. That is why I am always hesitant to talk about coups and all that sort of thing. There is popular support for the army, and it is unrealistic and perhaps rather naive of us to think otherwise. It is not a military junta that has suddenly emerged out of nowhere and is seeking to dominate the country. There is a groundswell of support for the army. How big that is and whether it constitutes a majority, no one knows.
However, this is a much more nuanced situation than one in which a bunch of generals have decided to claim power for themselves. If we look at the economic conditions in which Egypt has suffered for the past three or four years—the total collapse of tourism, which constituted between 15% and 25%, depending on different estimates, of the economy—we see that there is a massive and pressing need for stability, and it was in that cauldron that that military regime, if we want to call it that, emerged. That has happened across modern history. Across the world, we have seen situations in which there is a cry for stability and then someone emerges, often from a military background, to try to impose order. That is a very similar situation to the one that we find in Egypt.
The leading indication, the most obvious example, of the army’s determination was the result of the referendum: 98.1% of people voted for the constitution. Those of us who live in democratic countries such as Britain will know that there is not a single issue on which 98% of people would vote one way. I even suggested to one of my researchers that if there was a referendum on what day of the week it was—on a point of fact—we would not see 98% of people agreeing to that. We might see 90%, but there would still be dissent on what is a very palpable and obvious question, so the 98.1% does arouse suspicions about the transparency, openness and fairness of the process. If we look for other examples in the Arab world of 98% mandates—actually, I was told that Saddam Hussein used to get 100% in his elections—we find that there are not that many other examples of people getting 98%.
Mr McKenzie
The hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way again. On those statistics, does he agree that that 98% was based on a 38% turnout?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely, but 38% is not a disgracefully low turnout. That is quite a large turnout. In our local elections, we would be quite happy to get 38%. That does not invalidate them as exercises in local democracy, so I do not think that the turnout was particularly depressing. It was a reasonable turnout, but the 98% of the 38% does raise legitimate questions.
Guy Opperman
I promise that this is the last time I will intervene. Is not the endorsement not necessarily of the constitution but, in particular, of the desire for stability and a path back to some degree of economic prosperity?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend has made a number of very pertinent interventions, all of which I agree with. It is absolutely the case that what he refers to is what this whole issue is about, but what we have to consider—I want to deal with this in my closing remarks—is our relationship to incipient democracies, if we want to call them that, and to political governance in the Arab world.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Before he goes on to the other issue, may I put this to him? He mentions the constitution, which has increased provision for religious freedom compared with what there has been recently. However, in relation to ethnic and religious minorities, particularly Christians and Copts, does he not agree that words are fine—the constitution may make provision in certain areas—but the issue is the enforcement of and the abiding by those provisions and the human rights afforded to religious minorities in particular? How does he see the role of our Government in ensuring that those minorities are properly protected?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My right hon. Friend the Minister can speak with more authority than I can on this, but our Government have been absolutely clear about our commitment to human rights and to religious freedoms in Egypt. What the right hon. Gentleman should be aware of is that the Copts—we talked about a coup last year—were very much in favour of the military stepping in. They saw the Muslim Brotherhood as no particular friends to them. Indeed, they felt that the incidence of religious violence and of terror against their community increased dramatically in the brief period of Muslim Brotherhood rule.
There are many conflicting issues that we have to deal with. On one side is the protection of minority rights; on the other is the democratic will as expressed by the majority. Often in these cases in the Arab world, those two things are in conflict. One justification for military involvement was on precisely this issue. The army would say—it did say to us—that the Muslim Brotherhood did not look after the human rights of all Egyptians; it was sectional, and it looked merely to its own. In that context, the army has taken on itself the role of guardian of minority rights.
Egypt’s parlous economic situation is the context in which that military strongman, for want of a better term, may well emerge. The budget deficit has risen to $34.8 billion, which is 14% of GDP. To put that in context, our deficit was 12% of GDP in 2010, which was the highest proportion it had been in our peacetime history. Public debt in Egypt is running at about 90% of GDP. Clearly, there has been a massive economic crisis and the country is under a lot of pressure. There are also problems with terrorism and the rule of law. When we first arrived in Egypt in 2010, we managed to drive through the Sinai peninsula on our way to Gaza, but the presence of armed militias and armed forces in the Sinai peninsula, and the battles that rage there, make such a trip impossible today. The country suffers under massive economic pressure and the spectre of renewed terrorism.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. Does he concede that the new Government have displayed a disappointing attitude by not opening up the Rafah crossing, which has created further problems and tensions in Gaza? I recognise what he says about the journey across the Sinai; that is a fair point.
Kwasi Kwarteng
In the Sinai peninsula, which has generally been, for the past 40 years, under Egyptian control, the situation is one of relative anarchy. In that context, it would be asking a lot to expect any Egyptian Government to open the border. I cannot see such a development taking place, given where we are today. The army has a real job on its hands in trying to introduce some element of rule of law in the Sinai peninsula.
I conclude by making one or two remarks about our response. We went to our embassy in Cairo, where we received generous hospitality, and we encountered some hard-working and committed diplomats. The feeling that we received from people to whom we spoke in Egypt, at all levels, was that the west had failed Egypt and that we, as one of Egypt’s longest-standing partners, had not fully grasped the nature of the situation. That might be a misrepresentation, but I can only report what I was told. There was a perception that we had been slightly wrong-footed by events. In a fast-changing environment it is easy to back the wrong horse and then find that the winning horse is suspicious of people who have not fully supported it.
For decades to come, we will have to question the operation of the multi-party system. Over the past four years, secular parties have not emerged. The two power blocs of the army and the Muslim Brotherhood are the dominant forces in Egypt, and they may well be for some time to come. The Al-Nour party, which won a quarter of the parliamentary seats, is a Salafist party inspired by political Islam. It is difficult to see how a multi-party secular democracy can emerge in a country in which the army and political Islam, particularly the Muslim Brotherhood, play such dominant roles.
In Westminster and across western capitals, we will have to come to terms with that. We will have to reassess the somewhat naive idea that Egypt might become a multi-party system like Australia, for example. If anyone thought in 2011 that that might happen, it was a rather naive assumption. We simply have to describe what we see on the ground and how popular will is expressed. Secular parties have not developed as many of us anticipated, and it is an open question whether we should try to encourage their growth or simply focus our attention on the humanitarian and economic situation in Egypt.
I am grateful for the care and attention with which Members of the House have listened to my remarks, and I look forward to listening to and participating in the subsequent debate.
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
Four Members have indicated that they wish to speak, and I want to start the wind-ups at about 10.30 am. About 15 minutes from each speaker with interventions will probably take us there.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing a debate on this important subject. More than 98% of participants in the Egyptian vote in January this year voted in favour of approving a new constitution, and I concede that the turnout was a reasonably respectable 38%. That was, however, slightly lower than the turnout for a similar poll following Egypt’s 2011 uprising. Egypt’s new constitution strengthens the country’s three key institutions—the military, the police and the judiciary—and it appears to give more rights to women and disabled people. However, opposition members and rights campaigners have questioned the integrity of the referendum, saying that it was conducted against a backdrop of fear. Transparency International, an international monitoring group that sent a small delegation to observe the process, has said:
“Government officials openly promoted a vote in favour of the amendments; private and public media provided one-sided coverage in favour of the draft constitution; and the government harassed, arrested, and prosecuted peaceful critics, closing democratic space to promote views and debate before the referendum.”
The referendum process and outcome are clearly mired in controversy. If Egypt is to stand any chance of a more stable, prosperous and democratic future, lessons must be learned quickly. That will not be easy in a society that is being subjected to unbearable economic and other stresses. Under the social contract that bound Egyptians since Nasser, the state guaranteed education, health care, food, energy and even jobs to all citizens in exchange for their unconditional retreat from politics and matters of governance. That contract has been unravelling for decades and is now utterly frayed. The Egyptians, more than others in the region, are right to panic at the thought of persistent instability, fuelled by Egypt’s exclusionary, rudderless, confrontational and highly stressful political landscape. Given that uncertainty, the mounting economic pressure that has given so much violence is not surprising.
The population of the countryside and an urbanised underclass are growing in numbers, but the established elites still enjoy all the levers of power, and the latter are bent on keeping the former in check. Those tensions, which are increasingly manifest in society, have been decades in the making, and addressing them will be neither easy nor straightforward. Sadly, but realistically, it may not be possible to bridge some of the fault lines before things run their course on the streets, but we hope that fear of total collapse will continue to serve as a powerful safeguard. State institutions are dysfunctional but resilient, and Egypt can expect much support, whether benevolent or biased, from sympathetic states in the Gulf and the west. Democratic or not, many Egyptians see the referendum as delivering a constitution that legitimises the army’s powerful and unquestioned position in Egypt today.
Although the authorities maintain that the new constitution is a big improvement that delivers more rights and freedoms and is a crucial step on the road to stability, it would seem to be a version of stability that fortifies the power of a military who allow civilians to be tried in military courts. The constitution gives the military control over the appointment of the Defence Minister for the next eight years, and, most worryingly, it also stipulates that the military’s budget will be beyond civilian oversight.
Critics believe that the constitution favours the army at the expense of the people and fails to deliver on the expectations of the revolution of 2011 that overthrew the long-time military ruler, Mubarak. Egypt is a divided society, and it is in turmoil. Attending protests can result in a three-year prison term; that is part of an escalating clampdown on dissent. Rather than healing the divisions in Egypt, some fear that the new constitution will harden them. It is due to be followed by presidential and parliamentary elections in the coming months, and it now seems certain that the army chief who led the coup will run for President, possibly putting a military strongman back in charge of Egypt.
Although the authorities are insisting that the country is on a road map to democracy, some are not convinced and are predicting another mass revolt. Instead of rushing to endorse this or that leadership, hailing the political road map and hoping for the best, a constructive policy for the UK would be to combine healthy political scepticism with a more consistent approach to the issue of individual liberties and a clearer economic road map that would tie together Gulf money, western aid, international loans and a much-delayed reform programme.
Without doubt, Egypt’s economy is in serious trouble, with a growing budget deficit, an unprecedented increase in domestic debt, high interest payments and a slowing of the economy. Coupled with political unrest and other factors, that has led to a slow-down in industrial and economic activity in general. We can clearly see that Egypt’s economic health began to deteriorate immediately after the revolution in 2011. The world is now a small place, and communication channels are large, complex and in everyone’s hands. In the past, the world was somewhat blind to such turmoil amid the transition to democracy. Not now. Nightly, on our news channels, we see it, hear it and the world economy feels it.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The speeches in this debate so far have been measured, temperate and realistic—
Dr Julian Lewis
I pay tribute to both previous speakers and, despite the friendly sedentary intervention of my friend, the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I intend to follow in their footsteps. I congratulate in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on introducing such an important subject. I am pleased that people have not gone automatically into a mode of suggesting that all the good is on one side and all the evil on the other. In Egypt, we are confronted with a choice of which is the lesser evil. I agree with the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) that the correct course to follow is not to rush to endorse what has happened in Egypt. We should ensure that we maintain pressure on whatever Administration or regime emerges to follow a path back to constitutional democracy at the earliest opportunity.
It sometimes bothers me that people think that when a dramatic development occurs, it is automatically to be interpreted in the context of what we have experienced in recent European history. I felt the very coinage of the term “Arab spring” to be inappropriate. I did not feel that the spate of revolutions that took place in one middle eastern country after another should be compared to the attempt by central and eastern European countries, which had been well set on the path to constitutional democracy before they were hijacked by the Soviet empire, to go back to the democratic path. There was no direct comparison between those European countries asserting their right to return to democracy and what was happening in at least some of the middle eastern countries.
In 1941, Churchill was famously teased by one of his left-wing opponents when he spoke up for Russia after it was invaded by the Nazis. After all, Churchill was the architect of British intervention in the Russian civil war, and he famously wanted to “strangle Bolshevism at birth”. He had the right answer to his critic: he said that if Hitler invaded hell, he would at least have a good word to say for the devil in the House of Commons. In other words, he recognised that it was a choice between evils.
It is often thought that when a totalitarian regime emerges, based on a totalitarian ideology, it does so in a coup, with no popular support at all. That is not necessarily the case; in fact, I would say that it is not usually the case. There was certainly popular support for the Nazis, as well as for the communists in many cases where they succeeded in coming to power. The paradox in trying to deal with such situations was that there was a degree of democratic legitimacy to the initial taking over of the country, but once that had happened, the regimes proceeded to dismantle the very framework of democracy—however great or limited it was at the time—that had enabled them to come to power on the basis of some form of popular support. Such popular support was often allied to a specific type of devious perversion of political language when the regime was consolidating its grip on power.
The question that must be faced by democracies looking on as such situations develop is what we do when a group of people come to power, initially with a greater or lesser degree of democratic legitimacy, and proceed to subvert the system so that they will never again have to submit themselves to democratic elections. I suggest that what was happening in Egypt was a movement in that sort of direction. The country was faced with the choice of whether it wished to see Islamism take control, as it has done following what I prefer to call the Arab uprisings, to the disappointment of many of us who were hoping to see constitutional democracies emerge in other middle eastern countries. The issue is what we do about that. Do we simply rush to condemn the fact that Islamists have been ejected from power in Egypt, or do we recognise the real difficulty of the choice that Egyptians have had to make between one extreme situation and another?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The situation in Egypt was even more extreme than that, in terms of the groundwork laid for political Islam. In the parliamentary elections, 50% of the seats were won by the Muslim Brotherhood and 25% by Salafis, so 75% of the seats were won by parties that openly supported political Islam. There was no room for an alternative in that system.
Dr Lewis
That is absolutely correct. My hon. Friend will put me right if I am mistaken, but I recall that part of the deal at the outset was that the Muslim Brotherhood undertook not to run for the presidency—I think that I am right in saying that. That promise was very promptly broken.
In my time trying to comment as best I can on defence and security-related subjects in Parliament, not too many months—certainly not too many years—go by when I do not have recourse to mentioning one of my favourite political quotations from the late, great, Sir Karl Popper in his famous book, “The Open Society and Its Enemies”. I have quoted it before and I suspect that circumstances will require me to quote it again. The paradox of tolerance is that in a free society, people must tolerate all but the intolerant, because if you tolerate the intolerant, the conditions for toleration disappear and the tolerant go with them. I am sure that this is what the people who ousted the Islamists in Egypt would argue was their justification. Although I said earlier that one must not make simplistic comparisons, I am now probably about to do just that. Those people would probably point to the situation in Germany in the 1930s and say, “Wouldn’t it have been better if the army had thrown the Nazis out, once it became clear that they were going to rip up the constitution and remove any chance of a democratic future, and when it saw what the Hitlerites were trying to do to the German system—which had more or less democratically elected them to power in the first place—using the techniques that we are so familiar with in totalitarian takeovers, to get an iron and irreversible grip on the society?” How would we feel now if the army had stepped in then?
I worry when I hear people use phrases such as moderate Islamism. The description of Islamism is the description of an extreme, intolerant ideology; there is no moderate Islamism, any more than there is moderate totalitarianism or moderate extremism. The reality is that there was a choice in Egypt between an Islamist takeover and the ejection of a group of people bent on destroying any sort of emergent democracy in that country and making a terrible mess of running it in the process.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
While the hon. Gentleman is expanding on whether there can be moderate Islamism and the consequence of Islamism emerging in Egypt and other middle eastern nations, might I ask if he shares many people’s concern that religious minorities, including Christians and others, are being systematically purged, not just in thousands or tens of thousands, but in hundreds of thousands, from many nation states right across the middle east?
Dr Lewis
I endorse that, and pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his party colleagues for raising this question more consistently and more often than any other group of hon. Members in the House. They are right to do so. We have to try to take a long view of the prospects for the re-emergence of some form of moderate government in Egypt. Those of us who have been in, and aware of, politics for a long time can remember the bad old days of Nasser. I am sure that some people would say, “Ah, but those days are likely to come back,” but I remember that most sensible, pro-democratic people were relieved when Nasser’s successor, Sadat, showed himself willing to moderate the more extreme outlooks of Egyptian politics and to make peace with Israel.
I remember, when Sadat was assassinated by what, today, we would call Islamists, how relieved we were that somebody else came forward who carried on his policies. Nevertheless, as is always the case when people come forward and get a grip, as Mubarak did, and do not want to give it up, corruption became rife and the situation ultimately became unstable. Of course, understandably, the people became fed up with him. However, although it took quite a while for the people to become fed up with that form of dictatorship, it did not take them terribly long to be fed up with President Morsi and his group.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I appreciate the way that the hon. Gentleman is developing his argument. He is outlining the difficulties that we in the United Kingdom have in reacting to what is happening in Egypt, and the difficulties of choosing between two evils, as he termed it. Perhaps he will give us some specific steps that he believes the UK should take to stabilise the situation in Egypt.
Dr Lewis
I shall try to do so, although I am conscious that I am coming towards the end of my fair share of time. I shall try to make a remark or two along those lines at the end.
I do not hold myself out as being any form of expert on middle eastern politics, so I was pleased to see the comprehensive debate pack assembled for this occasion by Library researchers, who culled many good contributions from national and international media. I was struck particularly by the contribution of Dr Hazem Kandil, who is described as a lecturer in sociology and a fellow of St Catharine’s college, Cambridge, as well as being the author of a book entitled “Inside the Brotherhood”. He says:
“the Brotherhood’s opponents could not have fielded enough protesters to secure the cooperation of the high command had the common folk abstained. It was the Brotherhood’s shocking incompetence at government that drove millions into the streets on June 30. And it was the Brotherhood’s decision to turn a political clash into a religious war that guaranteed the public’s blanket endorsement for brutally repressing them.
The Brothers were ousted not because of their political duplicity, but because they were so bad at it.”
In other words, the people saw through them. He continues:
“they were later hunted down because they never understood that their countrymen preferred to risk backtracking into a functioning secular authoritarianism to the certainty of sliding into incompetent religious fascism.”
If I used those words, I might come in for some criticism, but when a knowledgeable fellow of St Catharine’s college, Cambridge, uses them, we all ought to take them seriously.
In response to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), I simply say that we should have a policy of positive critical engagement with whatever Government emerges. We should at least recognise that the Government who propose to emerge are at least talking the language of democracy, and can be held to that agenda, in a way that the Islamists do not.
My last observation is this. A few days ago, I was listening to the “Today” programme and a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood was asked a simple question by the interviewer: “Will you take part in the forthcoming elections or not?” He could have had plenty of good reasons for saying, “We won’t do it.” He could have said, “We don’t think they’ll be fair,” or “We don’t think we’ll be allowed to campaign freely,” and so on. The fact was that it took the entire interview, with that question being asked over and over, to get any sort of final admission from this man that, no, it does not propose to take part. That reminded me of nothing so much as old debates with Marxists, 25 or 30 years ago: they never gave a straight answer to a straight question, because they were subject to a devious political ideology and had the language to match.
These people are not democrats. They were about to subvert democracy. The people who have ousted them may not be democrats, but we at least have a chance of making them work towards democracy in a way that the Muslim Brotherhood would never have wanted to do.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for securing this debate and for the remarks he made in introducing it.
The situation in Egypt is dangerous and sad. The abuse regarding the right of protest and the abuse of human rights has been continual in Egypt for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) correctly pointed out that the military are back in control of government, as indeed they have been in control or supportive of government for most of the period since the second world war, if not longer. The army is the big factor in Egypt. We also have to recognise that all of Egypt’s constitutions, including the latest constitution that has just been voted through by yet another referendum, which is the third in three years, gives a unique and special place to the army in society and gives it a degree of independence—way beyond any sense of parliamentary control—that nobody in this country or in Europe would accept. Indeed, the Egyptian army has its own economy and source of income. Egyptian society is essentially a process of debate with the power of the armed forces, as opposed to anyone else, and we have to recognise that as one of the big factors.
The other big factor, of course, is the events over the past three years since the Arab spring. Everyone who recognised what was happening across north Africa and the middle east always thought that Egypt would be the last place to have mass protests, but eventually there were huge protests in Tahrir square that resulted in the removal and trial of Mubarak, who is still in custody. The protests did not end the power of the army, which during that period was clever in presenting itself as some kind of democratic force on the side of popular opinion. A constitution was produced, which was followed by the election of President Morsi.
Initially, the rest of the world was keen to do business with Morsi. He was due to come to Britain, and somewhere I have an invitation to meet him. He was arrested and imprisoned on a Monday, and our meeting was due on the Thursday. I then got the most peculiar e-mail that I have ever received, saying, “It appears that President Morsi will not be able to attend the meeting.” The e-mail did not give any reason why he was not able to attend the meeting. I believe that you were also due to be at that discussion, Mr Havard. Morsi has been in prison ever since.
I am not a spokesperson for the Muslim Brotherhood—I have many criticisms of many organisations, including the brotherhood—but one has to recognise that it has been an important factor in Egyptian society since its foundation in 1928. The brotherhood has large support, and its leadership and membership have suffered a lot of imprisonment since its foundation. The brotherhood has often been banned—by the British, by various Egyptian Governments, by Nasser, by Mubarak and by many others—so when the brotherhood finally won election it was an important turning point in Egyptian history.
Those who protested against the brotherhood presidency and Government—there were huge protests within a year—rather bizarrely turned to the army for their salvation. I have asked various friends on the left of Egyptian politics where that narrative came from. When people are making democratic protests against a Government and its authoritarian measures—indeed, there were plenty of authoritarian measures under Morsi—where in the democratic alternatives does one turn to the army for salvation? That is the conundrum. The Government that Sisi now leads, and of which he will no doubt become President in a short time, have been as oppressive of the opposition, albeit a different opposition, as the Morsi Government were. Large numbers of people have been killed or imprisoned, and the behaviour of Sisi’s Government towards human rights in Egypt is not good. Although one can understand the degree of opposition to Mubarak, to Morsi and now to the current Government, one should be careful of endorsing a military regime and the oppression of human rights that it is now undertaking.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Is that not the crux of the issue? The commitment to pluralism and peaceful change of Government, recognising that Governments come and go, is crucial. Is not one of the problems that, as the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned, it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood failed on that level of commitment?
Jeremy Corbyn
My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. Under the Morsi presidency and the then new membership of the Egyptian Parliament there was no development of plurality in politics or of a wide range of secular and non-secular political parties. There were a lot of attacks, particularly on religious minorities, which is totally unacceptable.
I have been to Egypt twice, both times en route back and forth from Gaza. I spent some time in Cairo this time last year, and I spent a lot of time talking to people in Tahrir square and meeting various others. I was struck by the level of antipathy towards the Muslim Brotherhood among people who had voted for it in the election a very short time previously. They voted for the brotherhood on the basis that it was not a continuation of the military governance of Egypt, but they rapidly became disappointed in what the brotherhood was doing. The situation is complicated, and of course there is a degree of polarisation, but there is also a massive abuse of the human rights of religious minorities and others, about which we should be concerned.
This is my last point. Will the Minister undertake to make representations on the position of religious and ethnic minorities in Egypt? Will he specifically make representations on the position of journalists who have been attempting to report what is going on in Egypt? I tabled an early-day motion on the arrest of al-Jazeera journalists on 29 December 2013. Those journalists include: the bureau chief Mohamed Fadel Fahmy, who is a Canadian national; Peter Greste, an Australian national who formerly worked for the BBC; Baher Mohamed; and an Egyptian cameraman, Mohamed Fawzy. One of them has been released, but the others remain in prison. As far as I am aware, they have not been tried, and I believe they are being held incommunicado in prison. Jim Boumelha, the president of the International Federation of Journalists, has presented a statement:
“We join international condemnation of the journalists’ arrest and demand that they are released with immediate effect. These are working journalists who have committed no crime and were simply doing their jobs. By continuing to detain these journalists the Egyptian government is undermining the right to press freedom and freedom of expression in the country and calling into question its attitude towards basic human rights.”
A number of journalists have lost their lives in 2013: Mick Deane, a 61-year-old Sky News cameraman; Habiba Ahmed Abd Elaziz, a 26-year-old journalist with Gulf News and the UAE-based Xpress newspaper; Ahmed Abdel Gawad, a reporter for Al Akhbar newspaper; and Mosab Al-Shami, a photographer for the Rassd news website. Those journalists lost their lives because they were trying to report the conflict.
Many people, including all of us in this Chamber, would argue about the way in which particular journalists allegedly report things. I have carefully watched how a number of international channels report what is going on in Cairo, including Russia Today, France 24, CNN, al-Jazeera, the BBC and Sky News, and one recognises that all of those journalists are doing their best to report the facts of what is going on. I guess those facts are unacceptable either to the army or other authorities in Egypt, hence the al-Jazeera team has been arrested—al-Jazeera continues to try to report in Egypt. The National Union of Journalists has produced a briefing on behalf of the International Federation of Journalists, and I would be grateful if the Minister would undertake to make urgent representations to the Egyptian Government for the release of those journalists. Will he also undertake that the British embassy will engage as rapidly and strongly as possible with the Egyptian Government on those questions and the questions of minorities and religious freedoms?
Today’s debate has given us an opportunity to try to understand something of the reality of life in Egypt, recognising that it is the largest country, with the youngest population and lowest level of natural resources per capita, in the region. It has some gas, oil and other natural resources, but their value is nowhere near that of what is held by other countries. Young people in Egypt have a thirst for jobs, homes and some success in life. One should not underestimate the level of economic demand behind much of the protest. If those economic demands are not met, the new Government in Egypt will also feel the wrath of the people, who feel they have been short-changed by poverty and corruption for a long time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is nice to have the opportunity to speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing the debate. I am not the only person to have been horrified by the television reports and by interviews with those who have fled Egypt. When I see the pain and fear in those people’s eyes I sometimes feel that I am not doing enough; and indeed we are not doing enough to alleviate that pain and fear.
I want to speak briefly about how the political strife and economic turmoil affect Christians in the middle east, and particularly Egypt. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) quoted the phrase “incompetent religious fascism”. There has also been concern about Sharia and how it affects those of a different religious persuasion. I want to speak about that.
My parliamentary aide went to Egypt with her husband in June and she came home absolutely raving about it. On her return her mother-in-law told her she had been praying for their safety. My aide had been unaware of what was happening in the rest of Egypt, as she was at a holiday destination. The story has been repeated over and over. Egypt is a beautiful country with tremendous tourism potential, but anyone who has watched the news recently would think twice about going there because of the unrest, which is damaging the economic climate. We have a duty of care to Egypt and I feel that we must do something to help in any way that we can.
My heart goes out in particular to those Christians who again seem to be the focus of many attacks. This morning I received information from some Christian organisations. According to persecution.org there have been numerous attacks on churches and Christians in Egypt this month. Witnesses and sources in Egypt reported to International Christian Concern that although the attacks that I want to catalogue were thwarted, they added to the fear that is regularly experienced by Christians in Egypt.
On Friday 3 January supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood attacked an evangelical church in the Gesr El Suez area of Cairo. The mob attacked in front of the church on Ahmed Esmat street. They began to pelt stones and to verbally abuse Christians and chant slogans against them. Mina Beshay, a Christian in the area, told ICC what happened. Reports indicate that there was no security for the church building and that the attackers operated with impunity.
On Sunday 5 January security forces in Suez disrupted a terrorist cell named “Supporters of Jerusalem”. They arrested the members when they discovered a plot to attack a nearby church on the night of its Christmas celebrations. Among many Christians in Egypt Christmas is celebrated a bit later than ours, on 7 January. On Monday evening, 6 January, a bomb was found in the bathroom of the Three Saints church in Beni Suef city. Police defused the bomb, which had been discovered by a church member. Missa Fawzy, a Christian in Alexandria, told ICC that a few days later, on 10 January, security forces
“arrested a bearded person in possession of four hand grenades in a handbag next to the Church of two Saints”.
On Friday 24 January the civil defence and civil protection forces in Assiut Governorate found explosives inside a car parked behind the church of Al Malak. Sources told ICC that the church, which is located in Al Numies street in Assiut city, was targeted “to be exploded”. There is a catalogue of attacks on Christians and their places of worship, orchestrated by terrorist groups.
Dr McCrea
My daughter and her family visited Egypt this year and I was concerned when I listened to the news. Does my hon. Friend agree that the people of Egypt voted for a Government in democratic elections, hoping that that would bring freedom, including religious freedom, but that they were sadly disillusioned when instead they got greater persecution, especially of religious minorities, including Christians?
Jim Shannon
I could not agree more. I also get an awareness of that in feedback from people who have visited Egypt, and people with friends and relatives there or with a deep interest in the country. The people voted in a democratic process and hoped for a better life under the new regime, but it did not happen. As the hon. Member for New Forest East clearly outlined, their hope was lost in the midst of what happened. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne said, there is now a precarious situation of political strife and economic turmoil; but in the middle of that there are religious groups. Christians are targeted for their beliefs, and because of some people’s perception that they have an attachment to western life. That is not the case: Christians want to worship and tell people about God. That is who they are and what they are. It is a sad and serious thing when they are attacked for their beliefs.
On Saturday 25 January security forces in Ismailia security directorate found 26 Molotov cocktails in a bag next to the church of St. Bishoy in the area of Sheikh Zayed in Ismailia City. Witnesses said that the person in possession of the bag of explosives was sitting in a car next to the church, and that
“he fled when he saw the policemen.”
That is another example of persecution directed at Christians, their property and their churches.
The stories go on and because of time I shall not go into further detail, but unrest and upset is being experienced by many, because of the targeting of Christians. There is a duty of care in the House and elsewhere to step in and help all people who are being attacked. It is a sad fact that the heartland of many Bible stories and much Biblical history is now a place that Christians flee from in fear. I worry that the remaining Christian population will leave, as has happened in many middle eastern countries. We share those concerns, as elected representatives, about the effect on Christians in various countries, including Egypt, and about the possibility that ethnic cleansing will be completed if some extreme Muslims have their way.
What is being done to support people and ensure that they feel safe? Can diplomatic pressure be applied, and what is being done to ensure that the aid that is sent also reaches the Christians who are so fearful? Comments often come back to us through churches. My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) would confirm that. The churches tell us that Christians in Egypt do not get the aid they should, and that is of concern to me.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne on bringing the subject of this debate to the fore. I plead, on behalf of my brothers and sisters in Christ in this country, for the eloquence and passion of the debate to be turned into actions that will save lives, restore families and give hope to a country that has so much to offer and so much to give. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) referred in an intervention to how many words are spoken. Verbal reassurance is good, but we also need the Government to provide physical and practical reassurance in what they do. I hope that the Minister can reassure us. If not, I must ask him what he intends to do to help the small group of Christians who are being targeted for persecution. Their plight needs to be considered by the Government.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I shall move on rapidly, to give the Minister enough time to reply. I apologise for the absence of my colleague the shadow Middle East Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who is on a pre-arranged visit to Lebanon, which is of great importance and relevance. I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing this timely debate, and on his balanced speech and the way he stressed how important and relevant it is for the House that Members visit countries and gain in-depth knowledge over time. That is sometimes dismissed and misunderstood by the media. I thought he spelled that out very well.
This debate is extremely relevant and timely because it is clear that Egypt matters, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne recognised. Geography alone places it at the hinge of the troubled regions of north Africa and the middle east. It is the most populous country in the region and accounts for well over one third of the Arab world. It has a history and culture stretching back for millennia. It is a major centre of scholarship, media, as the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, film and debate in the Arab world with a sophisticated, developed and articulate middle class, as we saw particularly in the early days of the Arab spring. As some hon. Members have mentioned, it was in the vanguard of change in the Arab world in the ’50s as well as more recently, and it lies across one of the world’s major trade arteries in the Suez canal, which, incidentally, is also a major source of revenue for the Egyptian Government.
However, we all share the concern about the all-too-familiar picture of a rising tide of violence and disorder with the usual complement of bombings and assassinations. Whatever direction Egypt goes in will have an impact not just on its citizens, but on the wider region and the world. At this crucial time for peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, let us remember it was the bold and enlightened leadership of Anwar Sadat that helped to establish peace in the area, for which he paid with his life to those fundamentalists we have been talking about.
I was in Jerusalem and Ramallah last month and I was struck and encouraged by the more positive atmosphere in both jurisdictions, engendered not least by the tireless efforts of Secretary of State John Kerry in trying to bring the talks together. Tribute was fully paid to him from both sides. An absolute precondition of the advance of those talks and a successful outcome is the Israeli need for territorial security and integrity. The stabilising efforts of the Egyptian army in Sinai and its discouragement of Hamas in Gaza are a crucial element of that.
We seek an early return of civilian government in Egypt, and recognise the important role of the military in ensuring the security environment that will allow effective democratic government and economic progress for the Egyptian people. The issue is not just about Egypt, but about the example in the wider region. It is fair to say that in neighbouring Tunisia, the more stabilised environment in Egypt has contributed to the recent encouraging developments and the move towards inclusive government, with the likelihood that elections there will be held later this year on a pluralist basis.
Another key lesson from Tunisia is the way in which the many parties that grew up rapidly during the changes since the start of the Arab spring have started to pull together in a progressive bloc, and will fight those elections in a pluralist society where both sides acknowledge that they will abide by the result and the subsequent change. That is an important change from the more Islamist-inclined party and reflects the outcomes of the less pluralist view of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the consequences.
I hope that we will provide, partly directly, partly through the European Union and partly through the Westminster Foundation—I hope the Minister will speak about this—the sort of work to enable not just confidence building but capacity building in the various parties, particularly the secular parties, in Tunisia and Egypt. The bedrock of a pluralist society is most important and within that is a significant issue. This touches on the point made by several Democratic Unionist Members—the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for South Antrim (Dr McCrea)—about the role of Christian and Coptic minorities, the protection of those religious minorities and the rights of women. They are not necessarily unconnected because there is an additional pressure on those Christian minorities from some extremists to conform to Islamic standards. That is another form of pressure and oppression.
With the European High Representative, Baroness Ashton, we should welcome recent developments in Egypt and the largely orderly referendum, and welcome the fact that the new constitution enshrines fundamental rights and freedoms, including freedom of expression and of assembly and women’s rights. We must monitor that to ensure that those rights are upheld. We must also be aware of and concerned about the pressure that extremists place on minorities, particularly the long-standing Coptic and Christian communities and, as was mentioned today, by acquiescence at local level from some of the authorities in some of those actions. The new Government in Egypt will undoubtedly have to address that.
This week saw the third anniversary of the popular revolution in Egypt, and we all hope that we will see the return of pluralist democracy and civilian government as soon as possible. We welcome the passage of the new constitution by an overwhelming majority in the recent referendum, and what seems to be an early announcement of the dates for presidential and parliamentary elections. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) said, it is not necessarily the role of individuals from the military in government that concerns us. For example, in Indonesia, President Yudhoyono was a general, but has clearly been a civilian general and has been able to exert civilian control over the military. That is what we should be looking for in Egypt, certainly not military control. We want effective civilian government and control.
This is only the start. Egypt’s people and especially its very large young population, to which several hon. Members referred, including my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), desperately need economic development, and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde spelled out some of the economic data. That depends very much on the security environment, especially with the significance to the Egyptian economy of tourism and the need for security to attract tourists, but it also requires the EU to engage directly with the new Egyptian Government, when it is elected, to encourage economic relations and investment to bring back and to expand the aid from the EU that was so crucial in helping to relieve suffering and to promote development in Egypt. We look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government will do about that.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Havard, and I thank you for your declaration of interests. I suspect in common with many other hon. Members, I always find it reassuring to have someone in the Chair who knows something about the subject. It is good to see you here. I know that it is customary in the House not to acknowledge people in the Strangers Gallery but, I am sure on behalf of everyone here, I pay tribute to the work of the Egyptian ambassador in London and his staff. He is a charming and well-informed representative of his country. I am sure we all want to put on record our gratitude for his work.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) for securing a debate on this important issue of the political and economic situation in Egypt. It would be sensible to say at once and on the record that I am sure I speak for everyone in condemning the violence in Egypt over the weekend, when more than 60 people were killed and many were injured. All our thoughts are with the families of those affected. If the report in this morning’s press that the police chief in Cairo was shot overnight is correct, I am sure that again I speak for everyone here in saying that our thoughts are very much with his family and his colleagues in the Egyptian police. As came through in every contribution this morning, everyone wants all Egyptians to resolve their differences peacefully and to refrain from violence.
Egypt is in the middle of a political transition, which began three years ago in January 2011, in Tahrir square. Since then, the Egyptian people have seen three Governments: the military-led Supreme Council of the Armed Forces; a year of Muslim Brotherhood rule; and, since July 2013, an interim Government. This is a crucial time for Egypt’s future and long-term stability. As many have said, the referendum on the draft constitution that was held on 14 and 15 January was an important milestone on the political road map and allowed millions of Egyptians to express their opinion through the ballot box. Egyptians are now looking ahead to see what kind of political process will take shape over the next six months. We expect the presidential election to proceed, followed by parliamentary elections in the summer. Both will be crucial to Egypt’s transition and to the country’s political and economic trajectory for years to come.
I will go through the various contributions and respond, if I can, to the points that have been made My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne—I am delighted that CMEC still takes people to countries throughout the middle east—made a fair and balanced speech. He is absolutely right that the situation is very nuanced and that there is no easy right or wrong. Crucially, he made it clear how important Egypt is to us as a country and to the region. It has an unparalleled place in history, which was a point also made by the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar). Egypt is vital to the security of the region, as the major Sunni state in that part of the world.
This country is Egypt’s largest direct foreign investor. At the height of the tourism boom, in about 2008, some 1.5 million British tourists went to visit Egypt. This country and Egypt have many areas of mutual interest. As many Members have said, Egypt has a young and emerging population, and many of them want to learn English, which is crucial to their economic future. We have also just seen a London football club in the premier league sign a young Egyptian starlet, so I am sure that many more Egyptian fans will be watching English football.
The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie), who has left the Chamber, was right to talk about the importance of an inclusive process. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made a good point, which came out when I was in Egypt in the week before Christmas: the problem with the Muslim Brotherhood Government was not one of ideology, but that they were simply incompetent, as a number of people said to me. They almost brought the country to its knees. I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s hope that a democratic Government will emerge.
The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned something that I will certainly take up. I have not yet seen the letter from the NUJ, but we will look for it when we get back to the office, and I will read it and ensure that those matters are taken up by our embassy in Cairo. I shall come on to the issue of religious and ethnic minorities in a minute, but I thought that the hon. Gentleman was right about the Muslim Brotherhood—he may find it strange my agreeing with him—because by sheer force of numbers it will be an important force in Egypt for many years to come, as it has been for many years already. Finding an accommodation with it will be crucial to the long-term political stability of Egypt. By the same token, however, the Muslim Brotherhood must commit to a democratic process. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that. Until it does, that makes it very difficult for the Government of Egypt.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I often talk about religious things. He is absolutely correct to draw the attention of the House to the plight of Christians. When I was in Cairo in the week before Christmas, we specifically asked to see the Copts. We do not have the facility to ask everyone in the Chamber, but I suspect that if I asked Members how many Copts there were in Egypt they would probably pick a reasonably small number. I was amazed to find, however, that the answer is 10 million to 12 million, which is a considerable number.
The Coptic pope was away from Cairo on travels, but I met a couple of the bishops. We had a positive, delightful, informed and structured talk on the political situation in Egypt. I have to report to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that they were enthusiastic about the new constitution and thought that it was a step forward. As is often the case with senior bishops, the bishop I met was sensitive about the previous Government, but it was clear that life for the Copts had not been easy under the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, I heard that evening how the Ministry of Tourism in Cairo traditionally issues licences for Christmas celebrations, but when it tried to license the first Christmas celebrations under the Muslim Brotherhood Government it was told not to do so. It was therefore unable to license Christmas celebrations over that period. This year alone, 94 or 97 licences—I cannot remember the figure—were issued, so licences are being issued once again. For all the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman correctly drew attention, it was clear from my conversation that the Copts felt that they were in a much better place now than was the case a year before.
The right hon. Member for Warley again made a good and well-balanced speech. I do not worry about the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), because we have tried to ensure that he has a valuable week in Beirut by helping him to get the right briefing. I hope that that is worth while. I join the right hon. Member for Warley in paying tribute to the work of the United States Secretary of State in seeking a wider peace agreement throughout the middle east. The energy and commitment that he has put into that initiative has been second to none and we support those efforts. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point to the importance of capacity building. I used to be a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in a previous life, and it and many other organisations will play a crucial role.
If there are no other questions, I will conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne again for securing this valuable and timely debate. For the record, this country’s relationship with Egypt is a long-standing one, and I want that relationship to be constructive and positive. We will continue to do everything that we can to support the Egyptian people in their country’s ongoing political and economic transition, although on occasion we will need to express our concerns about human rights and democratic principles. It is important that the political process is inclusive, and that is what the people of Egypt were looking for three years ago. We continue to believe that that will be the best route to long-term stability, security and economic success in the area.
Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)
Thank you, Minister and Members, for your considered behaviour and opinions. While the changeover to the next debate is taking place, I remind people who have entered the Chamber, if they have any electronic equipment that might make noises or otherwise disturb us, to turn it off or put it on silent running. The next debate is on Ofsted and standards in education.
Ofsted
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Havard.
The Minister of State will be relieved to know that I will not be referring to recent press reports about Ofsted. I am not here today to attack its methods or to call for its abolition—far from it. While I have the odd reservation, I am a big fan of Sir Michael Wilshaw and of Ofsted’s work. The issue that I want to focus on is Ofsted’s monitoring of the performance of local authorities in driving up standards in education.
The policy context is that under this Government, more and more schools are being freed from local education authority control. Thanks to the free schools programme and the Government’s dramatic expansion of the academy model, parents, teachers and head teachers are being trusted with the task of driving up standards in the classroom, rather than spending their time answering to local councils. More than half of secondary schools are in the process of converting to academy status, and I am sure that more and more schools and parents will want to take advantage of the freedoms that such status offers.
I can understand why the Government have pursued this policy so vigorously, as the success of privately managed, publicly funded schools is a global phenomenon. The OECD reported in 2012 that
“In general, privately managed schools tend to have more autonomy, better resources, better school climate and better performance levels than publicly managed schools”.
However, local authorities continue to run nearly half of secondary schools, nearly 85% of all schools and, obviously, the vast majority of primary schools. The head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw, said in a newspaper over the weekend that local authorities should continue to have a role “overseeing” free schools and academies. Local authorities will continue to be relevant and important to the standard of education delivered in Britain’s schools. However, that raises some key questions. How can parents and the public know what councils are actually doing to promote high standards in schools? How can the performance of local councils and their officials be assessed and judged? Are they doing the right things? Are they doing enough? Are they ambitious enough on behalf of their young people?
How can people hold local authorities to account? I would contest that that is not very easy. There are tables showing the performance of schools in a local authority’s catchment area, but those performance data can be affected by a number of other factors, such as the socio-economic characteristics of the intake. Issues with performance can also be masked by the performance of particular schools—I will say more about that a little later—including schools that are outside an authority’s control, and by the educational attainment of pupils from outside its catchment area. The questions therefore remain: how can people tell what local councils are doing to improve educational standards? Are they doing the right things? Is it enough, and are the people at the local education authority up to the job?
I was prompted to raise those questions today by the concerns that I and many of my constituents—and now also Ofsted—have about the performance of Reading borough council as the local education authority. I will not skirt around the issues or dress them up; I will just report them as they are. I hope that Reading LEA will listen carefully to my critique, which is based on the facts, and try to engage sensibly, rather than behaving in a knee-jerk, defensive and political way. I am willing to help it to reform and improve if it does the right things. At the end of the day, the key must be to improve the outcomes for children in LEA schools.
Reading has struggled for years to make consistent and long-lasting improvements to educational outcomes, thereby allowing many children to underachieve. Even at GCSE and A-level, for which the results are very good, its real performance has been masked by the excellent results from grammar schools, where around 90% of the children come from outside the borough. It strikes me that there must be something fundamentally wrong with an LEA that allows that level of educational underachievement to continue. Let me explain why.
Just before Christmas, the director of education, adult and children’s services at Reading borough council wrote to the head teachers and chairs of governors at all local schools, admitting that Reading’s key stage 2 results in reading, writing and mathematics had fallen behind those in almost all other areas of England, and were in the bottom five nationally. Reading LEA had the largest drop in the proportion of pupils reaching level 4 and above in the south-east region, and the third largest fall in performance in the country. The achievement of key groups, including some ethnic minority groups, those with special educational needs and those on free school meals, was also extremely poor according to the LEA’s director of education.
Inspection of local children’s centres has found them to be inadequate. In a damning judgment, Ofsted found children’s centres in east Reading to be “inadequate in all respects”, and is planning interventions to bring about improvements. To be inadequate in all respects takes some doing.
Earlier this year, the Minister wrote to Reading LEA, challenging it over the gap that has developed between rich and poor children’s performances, despite the huge Government investment through the pupil premium. Last year, the George Palmer primary school was removed from the LEA’s control and reopened as an academy due to its constant failure to improve its failing performance.
I have put my concerns in a letter to Sir Michael Wilshaw, and earlier this week spoke to Matthew Coffey, the Ofsted regional director. Ofsted has informed me that it was already concerned about Reading LEA’s performance because of the high exclusion rates in a number of schools; in fact, Reading was found to have the highest fixed-term exclusion rate of any local authority in England. The key stage 2 data confirmed Ofsted’s concerns, and on 5 October last year Mr Coffey wrote to the LEA expressing those concerns. Shockingly, Ofsted has told me that 5,000 of 13,000 pupils under Reading LEA control are at schools that are not considered even to be good. Surely a good school is the least that any parent and every child should have the right to expect. The situation suggests that Reading is an LEA that at best is allowing schools to drift, and at worst is failing to challenge inadequate standards properly.
Ofsted met with the LEA on 13 December, when it was made clear that if no improvement was seen, there was the option to carry out a focused inspection of the LEA. Although in reality it had little choice, I am pleased that Reading agreed to share tracking data for key stage 2 and targets for improvement. I also welcome Ofsted’s recent finding of improvement in Reading’s key stage 1 results. A further meeting to try to resolve some of the issues is due in March.
Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)
I endorse the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration for every youngster to have a good school. Given that the quality of learning and teaching is a fundamental factor in raising attainment and achievement in schools, how can Ofsted and the LEA monitor that quality, especially where there are non-qualified teachers?
Mr Wilson
As we all know, a debate on that subject is taking place this afternoon in the Chamber. Unqualified teachers have been used very successfully in both private and public sector schools for many years. I see no reason to try to change the current arrangements.
Let me explain the significance of the poor key stage 2 results I mentioned. Key stage 2 is an assessment of the attainment of primary school pupils. Although six of the eight secondary schools in Reading’s catchment area are now academies, only five out of the 31 primary schools are. Poor performance in primary schools means poor performance in the schools that Reading borough council runs. That suggests that the council, in its stewardship of the schools, is hindering progress, rather than fulfilling its legal duty to promote higher standards. Ofsted is concerned that the attainment gap between pupils receiving free school meals and the rest is getting bigger at primary school level, even though in secondary schools—most of which have left LEA control—the data are getting better and the gap is narrowing.
That situation must not be allowed to continue at the primary school level. I suggest that in the LEA there is a lack of ambition to challenge, and a lack of will and desire to take the decisions necessary to make real and lasting educational change. There is a culture in which failure in local schools is too easily accepted and excused. For a long time now, I have noticed a lack of aspiration for some groups of children, and a lack of will to challenge the notion that some children from difficult areas and chaotic homes are too challenging or damaged to be helped.
The LEA’s poor performance and attitude have forced me into a much more active role regarding local schools than I ever envisaged when I first became MP for Reading East. The local authority has termed that interference, but it would be a dereliction of my duty to my constituents not to intervene. Of course, I was conscious of Reading’s lack of consistent progress in schools when elected in 2005, but I could not immediately put my finger on the reason for it. When I did, the Government were resistant to making the necessary changes and to challenges to the educational orthodoxy.
That changed in 2010, when academies and university technical colleges got rocket boosters, free schools were introduced, changes were made to the curriculum, and help was made available to poorer pupils through the pupil premium—a policy on which I agreed with the Minister long before my party did. That gave me the tools to start bypassing an LEA that was at best coasting and at worst failing. It meant I was able to be a focal point for setting up a new UTC, which challenged other schools to up their game and LEAs to invest where there was inadequate performance.
The coming of that UTC encouraged the neighbouring LEA, Wokingham, to invest in Bulmershe school. Recently I helped another school from the neighbouring authority to get behind setting up a new free school for 11 to 16-year-olds. Maiden Erlegh free school will enable its mother school’s outstanding DNA—the standard that parents want for their children—to be delivered in my constituency. It was announced last week that it will open in 2015.
Lindsay Roy
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that there is a lack of aspiration in the local education authority?
Mr Wilson
Because, as I think I have explained, it is failing to take the necessary decisions to ensure that the gap between rich and poor local children is properly closed.
I am disappointed with Ofsted for not noticing what was happening, and for allowing Reading to bump along the bottom for so long, failing a whole generation of children. Ofsted should be a catalyst driving long-lasting change and improvement in local authorities’ performance, as it has been for many schools across the country. Local authorities have a legal duty to promote high standards in schools and among other providers, so that children and young people achieve well and fulfil their potential. It is welcome that Ofsted has restarted inspections of local authorities’ performance, but Ofsted will not inspect every local authority and will not undertake a fixed cycle of inspections; rather, inspections will be made where key indicators give rise to concern.
My questions for the Minister are these. Given that Reading LEA’s lacklustre performance has been apparent to us for many years, is he concerned that there are other LEAs across the country that are quietly failing to meet their responsibilities? Could they slip through the net like Reading? Will he commit to reviewing continually other Ofsted procedures for inspecting local authorities? Are those procedures sufficient and effective? Will he give a commitment that where Ofsted finds that a local authority is not doing enough to promote high standards, its recommendations will have real teeth and the situation will not simply be allowed to continue? With specific reference to Reading, will he give a commitment that he and his Department will keep a close interest in developments in Reading, and make it clear that if there is no developed and credible plan of action soon to improve performance radically in the LEA’s schools, they will ask Ofsted to carry out a full inspection of Reading LEA?
I am a huge supporter of this Government’s academy and free school policies—I believe that they will be seen as being among the signature achievements of this great reforming Government—but we must not turn a blind eye to the hugely important role played by local authorities. They must be subject to challenge, just like schools and teachers.
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mr Havard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) on securing this debate and making his points so clearly. I am pleased that he is doing what is important for Members of Parliament: not only acting as a cheerleader for local schools when that is justified and right—it is important to recognise and praise local schools’ success—but serving as a challenger when there is weakness and underperformance. Sometimes it is tempting for Members of Parliament to do the easy bit but not to confront the challenges, which is not always popular or welcome among some people in the schools system and local authorities. What my hon. Friend is doing is right for his constituents and for parents and pupils in the area. I am also pleased to hear about the wider role that he has played in seeking to improve educational opportunities for young people in his constituency.
I join my hon. Friend in putting on record my gratitude to Ofsted for the work that it does in inspecting schools and local authorities. I said a week or so ago at the North of England education conference that I thought Sir Michael was the best chief inspector of schools that we have ever had. All of us in the Department for Education are extremely grateful to him for the work that he is doing and believe that Ofsted is a very professional organisation that should be welcomed by all parties.
Lindsay Roy
Can the Minister explain why Ofsted does not have a systematic approach to inspecting local authorities, not just to bring about improvement but to share effective practice?
Mr Laws
There is a systematic process in place for inspection of local authorities. I will come to that later in my speech. For the time being, though, it is right to mention that the authorities on which the chief inspector is concentrating most are those with the weakest performance. Clearly, he could be going to other local authorities, and indeed he would be the first to recognise that spreading best practice is important. That is something that Ofsted seeks to do, but for the time being, it is targeting its scarce resources, which must also be applied to 23,500 schools and lots of early years settings, at the weakest performing local authorities, which I think is the right thing to do.
I would like to say a few things about the national context of underperformance, and then I will talk in detail about the particular issues in Reading that have been raised by my hon. Friend. As I said recently at the North of England education conference, improving our education system is the biggest long-term challenge we face as a nation. We are making progress. Last week, the results for secondary schools were published, and they show that the number of state-funded schools classed as underperforming in relation to floor targets is now 154 out of 3,200 secondaries, down from 195 the previous year. Those figures are a credit to teachers’ professionalism and hard work, and they mean that the number of pupils being taught in underperforming secondary schools has fallen by 50,000 since last year and by almost 250,000 since the coalition Government was elected in 2010.
Nevertheless, there is much more to do, as my hon. Friend has made clear. Attainment in many schools is still too low, and we have a long way to go in narrowing the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and other pupils. There is also wide variation between different parts of the country, as he mentioned. Our vision is of a school-led system where improvement is driven from within, with the very best teachers and school leaders modelling excellence in practice and working in partnerships to build capacity and raise standards across the system.
The national leaders of education programme enables head teachers of Ofsted-rated outstanding schools and their staff to use their skills and expertise to support schools in challenging circumstances and improve the quality of teaching and leadership. There are three NLEs in Reading. Alongside that, the local leaders of education programme enables head teachers of Ofsted-rated good schools to work outside their own school to provide support to another head teacher and their school. There are five LLEs in Reading. In addition, the Teach First programme now places nearly 5,500 teachers in schools in challenging circumstances. The programme started in inner London and will, in the year ahead, be for the first time a genuinely national scheme in all regions of the country.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention the situation in Reading. I will raise it, as he has done, with the chief inspector when I see him next week for my regular stocktake, and will mention this debate. Reading is currently ranked 111th out of 150 local authorities in Ofsted’s latest table for percentage of pupils attending a good or outstanding secondary school, and 116th out of 150 local authorities for percentage of pupils attending a good or outstanding primary school. The 2013 results for pupils at the end of primary school, in key stage 2, show that Reading has dropped significantly below the national average of 75%. Reading now stands at 69%, a drop from 73% last year. Those figures are disappointing. I note, however, that in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which includes primary schools in both Reading and Wokingham local authorities, the key stage 2 percentage is 73%, which is close to the national average.
Mr Laws
I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way.
At key stage 4, the percentage of pupils in Reading achieving five or more good GCSEs rose from 60.7% in 2012 to 63.6% in 2013, which is above the national average of 60.6%. Reading contains two selective grammar academies, as my hon. Friend will know, which have contributed positively to those results, but its non-selective schools, which on the whole continue to improve, have also played their part in that achievement. Reading East constituency averages significantly above the national average for key stage 4, at 75.2%.
The area has five primary academies, three of which are sponsored, representing 18% of the total number of maintained primary schools in the local authority. Most of those have been open or with their sponsors for a year or less. All have deep-rooted performance issues dating from their LA-maintained days. My hon. Friend will know that half the borough’s secondary schools are already academies. I understand that the only sponsored academy is now starting to make good progress following a slow start. Again, that school had many deep-rooted issues that the sponsor had to address when they took it over. In all cases, the Department is working with the sponsors and academy trusts concerned to ensure that rapid improvement is made and sustained over time.
I would like to mention briefly disadvantaged performers and the pupil premium, which my hon. Friend highlighted. In the 2013 key stage 2 tests at the end of primary education, 58.8% of pupils eligible for free school meals achieved the expected level in reading, writing and maths, compared with 77% in 2012. Again, those are disappointing figures. For all other pupils, 78.8% achieved the expected level in reading, writing and maths, compared with 77.9% in 2012.
Lindsay Roy
Can the Minister explain why Ofsted has apparently been so tardy in intervening and it has required the intervention of the local MP to bring the matter to the fore?
Mr Laws
Ofsted looks at 23,500 schools across the country. It has a huge number of early years settings and other, wider responsibilities beyond the schools. It has recently, under Sir Michael’s leadership, taken a far more thorough and proactive approach to local authorities, picking out the local authorities that it is most concerned about and beginning in a proper and proactive way the process of inspection that should have been taking place a long time ago, including under the previous Government.
Results for primary schools in Reading show that the percentage of pupils, both those on free school meals and their peers, who met the expected standard has gone down between 2012 and 2013. The results for free school meal pupils dropped from 54% to 52%, and the results for their peers dropped from 77% to 74%. At key stage 4 nationally, the proportion of free school meal pupils achieving at least five good GCSEs has risen from 34.6% to 37.9% in 2013. The gap between those pupils and their peers has now dropped to 26.7 percentage points, compared with 27.4 percentage points in 2011, which is welcome. In Reading, the picture is of rising attainment but the gap has widened. The percentage of free school meal pupils achieving the standard has risen from 31.9% in 2011 to 35.1% in 2013, but the rise for non-free-school-meal pupils has been greater than that, so the attainment gap has risen from 28 percentage points to 35 percentage points. In our view, that is not acceptable.
Those figures illustrate that although the national picture is positive, all schools and local authorities need to improve so that we can finally start to break the link between poverty and future life chances. To ensure that all schools are equipped to do that, we have spent, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, almost £4 billion on the pupil premium so far, with another £2.5 billion planned for next year. The rate for primary school pupils will rise significantly next year to £1,300 per pupil per year, and the rate for secondary school pupils will rise to £935. I want to ensure that that will be used appropriately and make a difference. Ofsted has a key role to play in ensuring that schools use the pupil premium for its intended purpose, and on an evidence-based basis.
I am pleased to report that this year only one school in Reading received a challenge letter from the Schools Minister urging better support for their disadvantaged pupils based on their recent results. I was able to write to two schools commending them on their excellent performance and encouraging them to support other schools. If my hon. Friend has not seen those letters, I will make sure that he receives copies so that he knows which schools I am talking about. I look forward to hearing how the high-performing schools are helping to spread best practice.
Local authorities have an important role to play, together with national Government, in leading the delivery of our ambitions for improved education. Where local authority maintained schools are underperforming or failing, early intervention and swift, robust action are required to tackle failure. Statutory guidance for local authorities, “Schools causing concern”, makes that clear. I understand that Reading has issued five warning notices to primary schools since 2009 with the aim of securing improvement, and I encourage LAs such as Reading to continue to make full use of their statutory intervention powers where they consider that maintained schools are not doing enough to bring about improvement. The statutory guidance is also clear that academy status with the support of a strong sponsor is often the best way of securing lasting improvement in those circumstances.
In cases such as Reading, local authorities should focus their main school intervention activity on the schools that they are responsible for. Good LAs should work constructively with all local schools, but academies are ultimately accountable to the Secretary of State for Education, and local authorities should raise any concerns that they have about academy performance directly with both Ofsted and the Department for Education.
Mr Wilson
I am fascinated by some of the things the Minister is saying. Does he agree with my concern that Ofsted tends to look at local education authorities where the failures are right across the board, but it also needs to look at the signals of those that are almost bumping along the bottom? They are not quite at the bottom, as the Minister showed through his league tables for primary and secondary school, but they are in that patch where they are consistently failing in areas of what they are doing. Ofsted really needs to challenge them, and it is not quite challenging them as well as it should at the moment.
Mr Laws
My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point in drawing our attention to the need to ensure that it is not only the LAs at the bottom of the performance table that are challenged, which I am sure that the chief inspector would acknowledge. It is relatively early in the process of inspecting local authorities in this way, and over time, I am sure that the chief inspector, who is independent of the Department in these matters, will make sure that he refines the way in which things are done, but does not simply focus on those areas that are right at the bottom of the league tables.
Where there is weakness, local authorities can intervene in many ways, such as by making effective use of data to intervene early; offering direct school support; encouraging schools to form self-improvement clusters; seeking to work constructively with academies; and finding suitable sponsors for underachieving schools. We know that those mechanisms work. The best LAs have reformed in line with the changing landscape and offer ample examples of good practice.
We are keen to see local authorities on the front foot, taking the initiative and not simply waiting to be challenged by Ofsted or the Department about the performance of schools in their respective areas. It is right that the chief inspector is highlighting regional and local disparities in the quality of educational provision through Ofsted inspections of local authority school improvement arrangements. We welcome his plans to ask challenging questions of local authorities, academy trusts and other external parties about their contribution to school improvement. Where the chief inspector reports a less than satisfactory response to his concerns, we will consider, as a Department, what action should be taken to hold those responsible to account. Continuing mediocrity and failure will never be an outcome that we can accept.
I understand that Sir Michael and his regional team have already been looking into specific examples that my hon. Friend has raised and the statistics he has brought to our attention. For example, Ofsted’s regional director wrote to Reading setting out concerns about the drop in key stage 2 results. As I think my hon. Friend knows, that led to a meeting between Ofsted and the director of children’s services in December last year. I am told that a number of actions have been taken as a result, including a new system for tracking exclusions and more close monitoring and tracking of achievement for pupils, which Ofsted will be reviewing shortly. The authority has also set up a conference for head teachers in February and has invited Ofsted to contribute, which I welcome.
I understand that Ofsted’s regional director has discussed some of that with my hon. Friend in the past few days and has written to him. I am confident that if Ofsted considers that Reading is not taking appropriate steps to address the key stage 2 issue, it will use its power to take appropriate action, whether through focused inspection of schools or through an inspection of the local authority school improvement arrangements. My hon. Friend will understand that deciding which local authorities to inspect and on what basis is ultimately a matter for the chief inspector and not for me or the Department.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to these very important issues. The solutions for the underperforming schools in Reading might also provide important lessons for other areas of the country, and he is drawing attention to something that is of great importance, not only to his constituency, but to the Government, for the entire country.
Mesothelioma (Insurance Premiums)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is an honour to open this important debate and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It would be remiss of me to start my speech without paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the late Paul Goggins, who was such an assiduous advocate for mesothelioma sufferers and their families. I attended his funeral the week before last at Salford cathedral with many other colleagues, and had a conversation with the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), in which he reflected on Paul’s innate decency and many wonderful qualities. He summed up Paul’s parliamentary contributions by saying that his arguments were well marshalled and his responses well mannered. I will strive for those high standards today, but I fear I will never be able to emulate such a brilliant parliamentarian.
In essence, this is a mercifully simple matter, but perhaps a few moments spent establishing the background are warranted. We are here to address provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—LASPO—that relate to mesothelioma cases. The relevant background is that changes were made by LASPO to the way in which the generality of legal cases were funded.
I practised for many years as a solicitor with Thompsons, and before arriving in this place in December 2012, headed up a specialist unit looking after those who suffered catastrophic injuries, including brain and spinal chord injuries, and sadly, on too many occasions, cases resulting in fatalities. I also had the privilege of representing members of the armed forces who sustained serious injuries in the service of their country. I never did represent those suffering from asbestosis or mesothelioma, but I had the privilege of working alongside some wonderful colleagues who devoted their professional, and often significant parts of their personal, life to the service and representation of those suffering from this most dreadful of diseases and their families. I pay tribute to the tireless work of my former colleague, Ian McFall, who is not only an international authority in the field of mesothelioma litigation, but has been, and continues to be, a wholly committed advocate of the cause.
With the move away from legal aid support for personal injury cases, and with such state support being removed altogether, the era of the conditional fee agreement came into being. I cannot count the number of conversations I had while in practice over many years, in which I tried to explain that the description of so-called “no win, no fee” agreements was wholly inadequate. The basis of conditional fee agreements, as they are properly termed, was that if a claimant was unsuccessful, he or she would not face a bill for either their costs and disbursements or those of their opponent. Any risk was principally borne by the claimant’s lawyers. Their reward was that when they succeeded for their clients, they benefited from an uplift on their costs—a success fee paid for by the unsuccessful defendant. All that was designed to take account of other cases that were unsuccessful.
The structure was underpinned by insurance: in the event of the claimant not succeeding, wholly or in part, that insurance would provide cover for the unrecoverable disbursements and the defendant’s costs. In the absence of suitable pre-existing, before-the-event legal expenses cover, that policy would be arranged on an after-the-event basis, known as ATE. The insurance premium was borne by the unsuccessful defendants in cases where the claimant won. In successful cases, the defendant bore a success fee and the ATE premium.
All that changed with LASPO. In short, from 1 April 2013, in return for a 10% uplift on the damages paid, the principle of recovering success fees and ATE premiums was extinguished, and those cost items would now be paid by the claimant; that represented a significant erosion of a claimant’s damages. It was argued in this place that mesothelioma cases should not fall foul of those provisions, and that those cases should be exempt. It was entirely right to have those exemptions in that Act in section 44, which concerns success fees, and section 46, which relates to after-the-event insurance premiums, and the reason for that was eloquently summed up in recent times by Paul Goggins:
“An amendment was passed in the House of Lords that exempted mesothelioma sufferers. Hon. Members from both sides will recall our vigorous debates in the House of Commons over the issue and the strong sense that it was repulsive that people who are given a diagnosis of mesothelioma and know that they might have only months to live might have to give up 25% of their damages to pay a success fee to their lawyers and would therefore have to shop around to get the best deal from those who might represent them. The idea was repulsive.”––[Official Report, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2013; c. 93.]
The idea remains repulsive, and no case has been made for changing the position. A claimant in these dire circumstances should be focusing on the quality of representation and nothing else. The exemption, securing 100% recovery, allows that to happen.
Section 48 made it clear that there would be a review, in that sections 44 and 46 could not be brought into effect in cases of diffuse mesothelioma until such time as the Lord Chancellor had
“carried out a review of the likely effect of those sections in relation to such proceedings, and…published a report of the conclusions of the review.”
The Government will doubtless point to the consultation launched in July 2013 on mesothelioma claims. The relevant part is chapter 4, which runs to three pages and asks:
“Do you agree that sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012 should be brought into force in relation to mesothelioma claims, in the light of the proposed reforms described in this consultation, the increase in general damages and costs protection described above, and the Mesothelioma Bill?”
With respect, that can hardly be properly described as a review, but more importantly, that chapter dealt with one of many matters consulted on, including fixed costs, secure gateways and new protocols, all of which were abandoned. It simply cannot be properly described as a review; equally, what happened subsequently was not by any means a report.
What we have had is an announcement, by way of a written ministerial statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who announced that the Government
“have concluded that they intend to apply sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act to mesothelioma cases”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 56WS.]
That cannot by any stretch of the imagination amount to a credible review or report as specified by section 48. Statute says that those things simply have to happen before the relevant sections can apply to mesothelioma cases.
To have introduced a new regime in April 2013 with the exceptions, and then to consult on whether the exceptions should still apply, alongside a host of other matters in relation to mesothelioma claims, in July 2013 was simply ludicrous. There were just three months between the introduction of the new regime in April and the July review; that was simply far too soon for any proper assessment to have been made of the likely effects of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma claims. No one can tell at this stage how much clients will be charged by solicitors under LASPO. The situation is developing as the market adapts. The same can be said of the cost of ATE insurance. The Government are jumping the gun. They need to pause and commit to a genuine process of review.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this very timely debate to the Chamber. With regard to the section 48 review, it is generally thought that it is pure poppycock and nonsense, although probably not in legal terms. Would it not be better to abandon the section 48 review and instigate a thorough review of the effects of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma claims?
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His intervention is apposite. There is only one respect in which I would slightly disagree with him: he says that the review is poppycock, although perhaps not in the legal sense, but we may find that there are legal consequences to it. I am of the view that it does not withstand scrutiny as a proper process. No doubt we will return to that.
Making these changes at this pace makes it abundantly clear that the Government had made their mind up way before April 2013 that these exemptions would not last any time at all. Thereafter, to try, in some tortured way, to create a link between the mesothelioma scheme as laid out in the Mesothelioma Bill and the provisions in LASPO is simply to conflate unconnected matters. If there was one American blues artist who epitomised the approach of the Government on this issue, it would be the inimitable Muddy Waters.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He will be interested to know that on 13 December, while the Mesothelioma Bill was in Committee—I was a member of that Committee—the Minister wrote to me, saying that
“the Mesothelioma Bill is relevant to the timing of the application of sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act to diffuse mesothelioma claims, since we have always intended to implement any such decision in a synchronised manner with other reforms directed to improving the position of mesothelioma sufferers. This was made clear when parliament agreed the relevant provisions in the LASPO Act 2012.”
Has my hon. Friend found any indication of that being made clear to Parliament in 2012? I cannot recall that happening, and I have not been able to find anything that makes it clear to me.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. Her point is absolutely valid: I have seen no evidence of that. We are trying to compare apples and pears, and it simply does not work. There should be no linkage between LASPO and the Mesothelioma Bill. We are dealing with wholly separate and distinct matters. On the one hand, we are talking about the conduct of cases where employers and insurers are known; those cases progress in the ordinary way. On the other, we are talking about a scheme to deal with cases where insurers are not traced. It is simply disingenuous and grossly insulting to sufferers to try somehow to make a link between the two, and to justify changes that will impact on the conduct of civil cases by saying that the “untraced” scheme is being progressed. If someone suffering from mesothelioma can trace an insurer, their case will proceed in the ordinary way. That others who cannot locate an insurer have recourse to a scheme has no bearing whatever on the conduct of ordinary civil cases. It would be refreshing if the Minister could make that abundantly clear when he responds to the debate, as in my view there is no integrity whatever in such an argument.
Without success fees, some cases that should run will not, as they will be too risky. Removal of the exception will result either in those cases not running, or in mesothelioma victims having to pay out of their compensation. That was clearly not the intention of Parliament, and I urge the Government to reconsider.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We are not exactly spoilt for choice, but in any event I would have chosen Tracey Crouch.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
You have made me feel so special, Mr Hollobone. I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on initiating the debate. Like him, I shall begin by paying tribute to the work of the late Paul Goggins, who was a fantastic campaigner on mesothelioma. I, too, went to his funeral at Salford cathedral a couple of weeks ago. It was an incredibly emotional yet wonderful occasion, on which people paid tribute to his life. Many things touched me throughout the service, but one thing that happened really made me realise the man he was. Tony Whitston, a long-time campaigner for asbestos victims, came up to me afterwards, and speaking to him made me realise that Paul Goggins had reached out beyond Parliament and beyond his own community to a much wider community. He was very well known for fighting many causes, but this is one for which he and I shared a great passion. It still feels bizarre that we are having a debate in the House on mesothelioma and he is not here. I still keep looking out for him in Portcullis House, as I am sure many colleagues do, wondering what he is going to say and what he is going to contribute on issues such as this.
I am sure that if Paul Goggins were here, he would share my disappointment that we are even having to have this debate today. It should not be needed. It is taking place only because of what I think is a bad decision by the Ministry of Justice, whisked out in the middle of December, on its review. We should pay tribute to the Government, because they are doing some good things on mesothelioma, but to campaigners for justice for victims of this dreadful disease, it often feels as though it is two steps forward and one step back. The Mesothelioma Bill is a really good example of that. It was a good Bill, but not a great Bill. The LASPO exemption under section 48 was a really good compromise that hon. Members on both sides of the House supported, but now we are back having to debate whether sections 44 and 46 of LASPO should be applicable to people with mesothelioma. I think that we should pause for a second and consider why mesothelioma is such an important issue.
Mesothelioma is an absolutely dreadful disease. It is nasty. People die from it very quickly and they contract it through no fault of their own. People can get mesothelioma only through exposure to asbestos—there are no other causes—and they are most likely to have been exposed in their workplace. Let us be clear: this is not just about the industrial classes. This is not just about the ship laggers who were perhaps operating in Chatham dockyard, in my constituency, in the 1960s and ’70s. It is also about professionals, such as teachers. It is about people who worked in a wider environment. I am aware of an admiral who passed away because he worked in a wider dockyard environment. He was not personally working with a hammer and nails; he was not exposed extensively to asbestos, yet he died of mesothelioma. He is one of nearly 3,000 people who die every year from this disease.
Many people seek compensation through the civil claims process, but not everyone does, because the system is so complex. One in seven people who contract mesothelioma do not bother going through the civil claims process, because it is too difficult. I think we should remind ourselves of that complexity. Whether a victim is a lagger or a teacher, they are likely to have had more than one employer, which is why case law such as Fairchild and Barker exists. The previous Government passed the Compensation Act 2006, which reversed Barker, and now we have LASPO. In addition, recent rulings from the Supreme Court make deciding whether the Fairchild rule applies even more complex. An individual who contracted mesothelioma because they worked in industry, worked in a dockyard or lagged a ship has to navigate through a minefield of complex case law, and they need specialist legal help. It is not fair that they should be punished by sections 44 and 46 of LASPO when they receive such help.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I join the hon. Lady in her tribute to Paul Goggins, who was a tremendous parliamentarian and human being, and I agree entirely with what she has said. In my constituency and across Belfast, which has a tradition of heavy engineering in the shipyards, we have many tragic cases. More than anything, relatives and family members want an easier, clearer and speedier process, and they get terribly frustrated by the lack of clarity. I endorse entirely what she has said. The Government need to look at that, and the special exemptions must be maintained.
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As a strong campaigner for justice for victims, I found myself in a bizarre situation last year, in that I felt sympathetic towards the pre-action protocols originally proposed in the Government review, because I felt that they might speed up access to justice and make the process simpler for victims. As it happens, the Government ditched the pre-action protocols and will introduce measures that may take away 25% of a victim’s damages to fund the conditional fee arrangements and after-the-event insurance. I want to get as much money as possible to the victim as quickly as possible. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has said, once people find out that they have mesothelioma, they have little time left in their lives to plan for the financial security of their dependants because, very sadly, they often die quickly and nastily within six to nine months of contracting the illness. They will not be thinking about shopping around for after-the-event insurance or the best-priced legal fees when they are trying to deal with their horrible disease.
There is a slight irony in the fact that I am speaking about mesothelioma from notes written on cards sent to me—and, I assume, all parliamentarians—by Macmillan. This debate gives me a good opportunity to thank those who support victims of mesothelioma, such as Macmillan nurses. They deal with lung cancers all the time, but mesothelioma is quite possibly the worst that they have to deal with. It is an opportune moment to congratulate those who help sufferers of mesothelioma.
I return to LASPO. When the Bill went through Parliament, section 48 granted a welcome exemption from sections 44 and 46. Parliament had its say, and the House of Lords defeated the Government on the issue. Paul Goggins, who worked closely with the then Minister on the matter, and I welcomed the measure, and we sought assurances that if there were to be any change, Parliament would be given a say on it. Lord McNally, the then Minister of Justice in the House of Lords, made it clear that although commencement orders would be introduced by statutory instrument in the usual way and did not require the approval of both Houses,
“The amendment means that the commencement cannot begin on mesothelioma claims until a review has been carried out and a report published on the likely effect of the provisions on mesothelioma claims.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2012; Vol. 736, c. 1824.]
I argue that a proper review has not been conducted, and a report has definitely not been published. It is disrespectful to Parliament that a decision was made in a written statement that sections 44 and 46 would be applied in this way. If that assurance was not enough, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), the Minister’s predecessor, which stated that the Lord Chancellor would review
“the likely impact of the reforms on mesothelioma cases and publish a report.”
We did our very best to secure the exemption for victims of mesothelioma during the passage of LASPO. We did so in good faith, believing that a proper review would take place and that we in Parliament—and those, including the victims, who have real concerns—would see the outcome of that review in a report. We have not yet seen such a report. That is unfair on parliamentarians and, more importantly, victims.
Kate Green
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for all the work that she does on this issue, which I know is much appreciated by victims and their families. Does she agree that without such a report, it is impossible to make sense of any changes in circumstances that have occurred since the passing of LASPO? To observers from outside, there has been no reason for the Government’s complete change in direction.
Tracey Crouch
I agree with the hon. Lady. I understand that as part of the mechanism of government, reviews are often carried out, as a consequence of which changes may be made swiftly. When we have been promised a report so that we can assess whether the impact of the changes under LASPO will affect mesothelioma victims, I expect the victims, those who have contributed to the review, and parliamentarians who have spoken about the matter to have access to that report.
Although it might be too early to conduct a proper assessment of the effect of sections 44 and 46, we must be aware that the legal ombudsman has made it clear that the changes are causing considerable stress and excessive loss not only to mesothelioma victims but to other personal injury claimants. Mesothelioma victims are a special case, for reasons that have been outlined. The Government recognised that in their written ministerial statement, and the introduction of section 48 of LASPO indicated that mesothelioma should be considered differently from other personal injury cases.
I want to pick up on the written ministerial statement, which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has mentioned. It referred to the Mesothelioma Bill, an important piece of legislation for those who cannot trace their insurer, which will be welcomed by the 300 or so victims every year who cannot get compensation through the civil claims process. LASPO is not relevant to the Mesothelioma Bill. LASPO deals with those who are going through the complex civil claims process, but the Mesothelioma Bill is there for entirely different reasons. If we continue to mix the two pieces of legislation—the Minister should listen carefully to this, because it would have a Treasury impact—we may end up providing a disincentive for people to trace their insurer because they find it too difficult to do so through the civil claims process. If they trace their insurer, they may lose 25% of their compensation as a result of sections 44 and 46 of LASPO. We want people to access the scheme for the right reasons, and those measures create a perverse incentive for people to access it for precisely the wrong reasons.
I was going to read the exact quote from the late Paul Goggins that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough used, in order to make the point that people find it repulsive that victims of mesothelioma could be asked to shop around to get the best deal from those who might represent them. However, the hon. Gentleman made that point perfectly adequately, and I hope that the Minister heard it the first time. We must acknowledge the fact that the report has not been published. We are not trying to be difficult with the Minister—I am certainly not. All I want is to put the victim at the centre of the process. To be perfectly honest, it does not feel like that is the case currently.
I am sure that the Minister is aware that over the past few years 15 people have died of mesothelioma in his own constituency. That is the 15 deaths that are registered; it is not necessarily the 15 people who have had secondary exposure, such as the women who washed overalls or the children who hugged their father when he came home from work. Of the 15 people who were registered, statistically two of them would not have bothered to go into the civil claims process because it is too complex. Those who have, I hope, have been adequately compensated for simply going to work and contracting a disease. The danger is that the legislative changes proposed on the Minister’s watch could mean that more people do not get the financial compensation they deserve, either because they do not go through the civil claims process, or because they do and are punished by losing 25% of what they should get to lawyers or insurers.
Our system should be simple, faster and better for victims. We know how many people have died of this disease so far; we do not know how many people will die of it in future. We do know, however, that they will die quickly. We also know that they will want to pass away leaving some sort of financial security for their dependents. I urge the Minister not only to publish the report—it is a moot point as to whether the process was conducted properly or whether the question asked was at all relevant to mesothelioma victims—but to halt the introduction of sections 44 and 46 until much further consideration has taken place.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on securing this important debate.
Before Christmas, I was a member of the Public Bill Committee that scrutinised the Mesothelioma Bill, and it really was informative. The Labour Opposition and I missed great opportunities to try to get the rightful compensation for people who have suffered greatly as a consequence of mesothelioma. As I look around the Chamber, I see people, including the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who clearly understand how this disease affects individuals. It is as vicious as any work-related condition that anyone could experience. We must never forget the impact it has had on families and friends.
Mesothelioma is one of those diseases where once someone has been diagnosed, the prognosis is basically death within—if they are lucky—18 months. As politicians of whatever party—red, blue, yellow or whatever— we have a duty to look after people whose only crime was going to work in unsafe conditions. At the time they were very much unaware of how unsafe the conditions were. We heard tales of people—young people; apprentices—making asbestos snowballs at work and throwing them at each other, not knowing that in future it could have a dramatic impact on their lives and those of their families. The issue is really, really serious.
I cannot continue without paying tribute, as has each Member who has spoken, to the late Paul Goggins. He made a fantastic contribution to the Mesothelioma Bill Committee and was for a long time a fantastic campaigner on similar issues, particularly those related to cancer. Of course, he was especially dedicated to mesothelioma, and throughout our consideration of the Bill he was at the front, together with the Labour Front-Bench team, fighting for what was right and for justice for these people.
The Mesothelioma Bill was a missed opportunity. Once enacted, it will underpay people who are suffering—the victims. As the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, we must at all times “put the victim at the centre of the process.” Too many others have been involved, such as the insurance company that has led things from the front. During scrutiny of the Bill, the Minister in the Committee, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), said quite clearly that it was not a case of bringing the insurance companies to the table to discuss compensation; they had to be dragged there. The insurance companies have made fortunes—millions if not billions of pounds—from premiums. We must not forget that premiums were paid. It is not a case of insurance companies looking for finance that was not there: the premiums had been paid by the employers, and the insurance companies have paid out dividends to shareholders instead of keeping the money for compensating dying victims of mesothelioma.
We often forget the families. The cut-off date in the Mesothelioma Bill is July 2012. That means that millions—sorry, I am getting carried away with my figures—certainly hundreds if not thousands of people will miss out on any form of compensation. At best, the individuals affected will receive 75% of damages. It is beyond me why they have to accept that. If someone gets hurt and the employer accepts it, why should the insurance company demand that they get only 75% of what the injury is actually worth? That is absurd and should not be the case for this horrendous disease. At the same time as getting only 75% of damages, the benefits clawback is being pitched at 100%.
These people, who have suffered, are suffering greatly and will suffer in future, are confused. They are confused by our debating LASPO. These people are ill, their families are looking ahead to a lifetime without their loved ones, and they are trying to understand what LASPO and CFA mean. As politicians we should be above that. We should have ensured that the families came first, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said. The families are not aware of what section 44 and section 46 mean. They have not got a clue and, let us be honest, they are not even bothered what section 44, section 46 and section 48 of the LASPO Act mean. What they want is justice for their families and for the person who sadly will be leaving the family within 18 months at best. The review is totally flawed. As I said in an intervention, the Government should abandon the section 48 consultation.
One reason I say that the review is fatally flawed is that the Government abandoned the consultation reforms that were relevant to sections 44 and 46. They conceded that the Mesothelioma Bill really has nothing to do with the effects of sections 44 and 46, but they said that it was always their intention to “synchronise” the section 48 review and the Bill.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend agree that that must be at best a quite cynical statement? The argument about the Mesothelioma Bill was that a deal was being negotiated with the insurance industry, and that it would not be possible to introduce a scheme to have effect prior to the conclusion of that deal on 25 July 2012. It seems that at the beginning of 2012, when the LASPO Act was passed, Ministers were envisaging a deal that did not exist, as the present justification for saying that the two can be synchronised. They cannot possibly have been waiting to synchronise with a deal that might never have come to fruition.
Ian Lavery
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head with that important point, which she raised during the progress of the Bill.
The second issue is the fact that the section 48 review did not ask respondents to make the case for the mesothelioma exemption. It asked if respondents agreed with the Government that the exemption should be lifted in the light of the consultation reforms, plus the CFA reforms and the Mesothelioma Bill. Had the Government asked for the case to be made, the recent legal ombudsman’s report on no win, no fee arrangements would have been most pertinent. The report states that the CFA agreements are not simple to understand and contain unclear terms and conditions, and that there is evidence of some lawyers failing to make clear the financial risks of CFA agreements and trying to pass on the risk to customers. That is precisely the situation that the Lords feared and would not tolerate for dying mesothelioma sufferers.
As it stands, the review is not based on the effects of sections 44 and 46 on mesothelioma claims. It is based on a reiteration of the Government’s intention to apply the CFA LASPO reforms to mesothelioma claims. That can hardly be described as a review. Members of Parliament should ask the Government to abandon the so-called review and seek a proper, fuller one.
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole premise of the review is fatally flawed? It includes the question:
“Do you, agree that sections 44 and 46…should be brought into force in relation to mesothelioma claims, in the light of the proposed reforms described in this consultation”?
Those did not proceed; they were abandoned. Does not that put the skids under the entire project?
Ian Lavery
I fully agree with my hon. Friend about that—it is question 15 of the section 48 review. It is even more reason for us to seek agreement to the abandonment of the review, and to get to grips with the real problems cutting across the Mesothelioma Bill. MPs should ensure that the outcome of a proper section 48 review is brought before Parliament and not introduced via a commencement order, as the Government probably intend. [Interruption.] Someone has turned my telephone on during the debate, Mr Hollobone: I am sure I switched it off before. I apologise for that.
The legal aspect of the matter seems extremely complicated, and I make an appeal to politicians from across the Chamber. The legislation is not really what I or many other Labour Members wanted, but it is progress. It will mean that individuals can get some form of compensation through the scheme. We must put individuals at the heart of things—the sufferers: people who are losing their lives, and families who will lose loved ones within 18 months. Such things should be cleared pretty quickly, so that families will not be bogged down in legal problems, and will fully understand the compensation procedures they want to embark on. Even if there was 100% compensation for mesothelioma it would not be enough; there cannot be enough compensation for the loss of a breadwinner, father and husband, or mother and wife. There cannot be enough compensation for the loss of someone so important in family life.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I too want to begin by paying my respects to Paul Goggins. As many hon. Members have said, the issue that we are debating was hugely important to him. When I was researching the debate, his name ran through matters to do with mesothelioma like a golden thread—through the LASPO Act and the Mesothelioma Bill, and repeated questions to Ministers at Justice and other questions. Indeed, the last communication that I had with him, by e-mail on 19 December, was proposing this debate, and agreeing that we needed to debate the specific issue, which we had been unable to resolve through the Bill or questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said, it is most likely that Paul would have introduced the debate. We miss him very much. Nothing sums up as well as the present issue his humanity and his assiduousness as a parliamentarian.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, who set out the case so clearly, and other hon. Members who have spoken: my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who has just spoken, and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). It is not the first time that either of them have taken part in such debates; they have a fantastic track record on such issues. I thank, also, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). Many other hon. Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), wanted to take part but were unable to be here.
The issue matters to hon. Members of all parties in both Houses. Many of the achievements that got us where we are today came through the efforts of Lord Alton, supported by Lord Beecham and Lord Bach and of course the late Lord Newton. Finally, although he has already been spoken of, Tony Whitston should be mentioned again. He co-ordinates the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum. A huge amount of good work is being done on behalf of mesothelioma sufferers, including support from many claimant law firms, but I am afraid some of the arguments fall on deaf ears.
This debate is slightly different from some Westminster Hall debates, because it is not so much a general discussion as an opportunity to ask the Minister for specific action and to answer specific questions on quite a narrow point. The reason for seeking such a debate was that satisfaction has not been gained through other channels—in the Mesothelioma Bill and repeated questions on the Floor of the House—and through correspondence, as has been stated. I hope that the Minister will answer those questions and tell us when the report, which the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford mentioned, will be available to us.
I do not think I need to talk about the general issue of mesothelioma, other than to say that it is a long-tail disease, the symptoms of which may not show for decades. Once it has been diagnosed, death is an almost certain consequence, usually within months rather than years, and it causes terrible suffering to the victims and to their families. That is why it has been treated as a particular, special case.
Currently, there are about 2,300 deaths per year and that is still rising, although those will peak because of the curve in the mortality that comes from the negligent behaviour of employers over a period of time. The number of deaths has been growing steadily since the 1970s and will peak at the end of this decade, but there are still tens of thousands of people in this country alone who will die from the disease.
The debate pack briefings were principally concerned—not surprisingly, as it has been in the news so much recently—with the Mesothelioma Bill. It has already been made clear that that is a wholly discrete issue from what we are talking about today. I was struck by how important this issue is to the public. The pack contains cuttings from newspapers from all around the country, not just from the old industrial areas. Real anger comes through in the personal case histories, and from commentators, about how the Government have been selling mesothelioma victims short.
I will mention just one case that illustrates the important point that we are debating. The Evening Standard last Friday published the case of Monica Haxton:
“A grandmother whose terminal cancer was caused by washing her husband’s asbestos-laden overalls today described her ‘relief and peace of mind’ after being awarded £700,000 damages in a landmark case.
Monica Haxton, 66, lost her husband Ronald to mesothelioma …caused by his years spent working as an electrician in Balham.
Over the years, she said she spent hours washing her husband’s boilersuit after his shifts at Philips Electronics where he was exposed to asbestos dust while dismantling boilers.
Two years after his death in July 2009, she began suffering the same symptoms and was diagnosed with the same cancer in January 2012.
But Mrs Haxton, from Sutton, was caught up in a protracted legal dispute over the scale of her damages which has only now been resolved in the Appeal Court.
The mother of four said: ‘Ronald and I were married for 45 years and he worked there for 42 years, but the negligence of that company by failing to protect us from asbestos exposure has ruined both our lives.’”
The Standard reported:
“Mrs Haxton’s lawyers helped secure her payout after the company’s insurer admitted full responsibility for her husband’s cancer but refused her a second settlement for negligence over her own terminal cancer.
They claimed that because her life expectancy had been reduced she was not entitled to the extra damages.”
That shows something that insurers often deny: the complexity of some mesothelioma cases—causation often can be an issue—and the lengths to which some insurers will go to defend claims. The point that the insurers made in Mrs Haxton’s case is that, because she was going to die soon because of mesothelioma, she was not entitled to the same amount of damages as she would have received if she were a dependant of her husband who had not been affected and lived longer.
Thankfully, the Court of Appeal ruled entirely in Mrs Haxton’s favour. The £700,000 awarded will perhaps be of some assistance to her family, but it is no comfort to that family that both parents will have died from this terrible disease. That is the type of case we are dealing with and that is why there were arguments with the Government, throughout the progress of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill in both Houses, about why that exception should be made.
Votes as well as arguments went on in both Houses. In the other place, votes were successful, in the sense that the Government were defeated. The final defeat of the Government on this issue took place on 23 April 2012, by 205 votes to 214, on a motion on an amendment moved by Lord Alton. Consequently, on the following day in the ping-pong process, the then Minister made this concession:
“I can now give the House the assurance that we will not commence the relevant provisions in clause 43, on success fees, and clause 45, on after-the-event insurance, in respect of mesothelioma claims in April next year. Rather, we will implement the clauses in respect of those claims at a later date, once we are satisfied on the way forward for those who are unable to trace their employer’s insurer. The amendment commits the Lord Chancellor to carrying out a review of the likely effect of the clauses in relation to mesothelioma proceedings and to publish a report before those clauses are implemented.”
Hon. Members from all parties did not entirely accept what the Minister said. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is rightly sceptical on such occasions, said:
“On the point about the delay until the review has been undertaken, is that merely a delay or is it a genuine review? If it is a review, what will it consider and will he give an indication of its timetable?”
The Minister replied:
“Given the timing of this development, we have not thought through the exact procedures of the review, but it will certainly be undertaken before we move to ending the provisions that remain.”
That, at least was honest.
Other hon. Members made speeches, raising concerns, including the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford and Paul Goggins. The shadow Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), also mentioned the review and was intervened on by the hon. Member for St Ives, who said:
“The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my intervention on the Minister, when I sought to distinguish between a mere delay in the implementation of the policy and a genuine review. I hoped that the Minister would give me some indication that if the findings of a review required the Government’s policy to be amended in some way, there would be an opportunity for a rethink.”
The shadow Lord Chancellor, showing unusual confidence in the Government, said:
“I believe that this will be a genuine review…but the report needs to be based on proper evidence”.—[Official Report, 24 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 831, 837.]
The concession was accepted here and in the other place, in good faith, because it was believed that there would be a proper review and a report. However, on 24 July 2013, considerably later, the consultation paper, “Reforming Mesothelioma Claims”, was published. That consultation was primarily about the proposed pre-action protocol, fixed cost proposals and the electronic gateway. Tagged on to the end of that paper—it really was tagged on to the end, at part 4 of that report—was a heading, “Review under section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.” The Minister was not in post at the time, but I hope that he has read it.
That peculiar document begins:
“This part of the consultation paper”
examines
“the review…The Government believes that other changes set out in this consultation, and the changes to the statutory framework for funding of litigation described above, together with the changes being introduced in the Mesothelioma Bill should make it possible, and appropriate, for sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act to be brought into force for mesothelioma claims at the same time as those other changes.”
It talked about a review but did not appear to be the review. The question that it posed at the end bore no relation to a review taking place. The review, if it claimed to be a review, was flawed. As has been the case throughout, it appears to have been convenient for the Government to muddle through, to let time elapse and to go back to the position they wanted in the first place.
It gets worse, because we then come to the written ministerial statement of 4 December in which the Minister blithely said:
“The Government have carefully considered the responses and have concluded that they intend to apply sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act to mesothelioma cases, as for all other personal injury cases.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 56WS.]
Extraordinarily, the report was not published at the same time as the statement, and it has still not been published, so we do not know what the reasons are. The statement really was a “we are here because we are here” answer. The Minister said, “We are going to do what we were going to do all along,” ignoring all the objections, the votes and the assurances that were given during the passage of the LASPO Act.
Further attempts have been made to ascertain where the Government are on this, and the issue has come up repeatedly at Justice questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston has brought it up. At the most recent Justice questions on 17 December, I raised the issue with the Secretary of State, who replied:
“Of course this is not a new problem, and in many areas we are picking up on things that were not done by the previous Government. We will bring forward a further consultation on these issues shortly.”
I do not know whether that is right, and the Minister will no doubt enlighten us on whether there will be a further consultation, but when Paul Goggins asked the same question later in the same Question Time, the Minister replied:
“We had a consultation, and we have come up with the preliminary report. As was said earlier, we will come up with a fuller report in due course.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2013; Vol. 572, c. 610, 618.]
Again, I do not know what that preliminary report is, and I do not know when the fuller report will come to light, but none of that helps to clarify the situation.
I will not take up much more time, but there has not been a proper review. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck read out the question that purported to be the review:
“Do you agree that sections 44 and 46 of the LASPO Act 2012 should be brought into force in relation to mesothelioma claims, in the light of the proposed reforms described in this consultation, the increase in general damages and costs protection described above, and the Mesothelioma Bill?”
That is not a proper review, and it is not the review that Parliament was promised.
Two months after the written ministerial statement announced the decision, the report has still not been published. Most importantly, the Government have conceded that their criteria for not making mesothelioma a special case no longer apply. They conceded that point on the Mesothelioma Bill, as they did when they finally answered the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. A similar response was given to my noble Friend Lord Beecham and Tony Whitston, which made it clear that the only link between the LASPO provisions and the Mesothelioma Bill is that they might happen at the same time, in July 2014. Well, the World cup final is happening in July 2014, so it has as much to do with LASPO as the Mesothelioma Bill in that respect.
The second point that has been made, which I will not labour, is that, somehow, it was right to go ahead with applying sections 44 and 46 to mesothelioma claims because of the other changes that were being made. Under the influence of the Association of British Insurers, as always, the Government were pretending that the pre-action protocol, the gateway and the fixed costs would actually help mesothelioma sufferers. Let us be fair to the Government, because for once they did not go down the route of pursuing the ABI agenda. I am pleased to say that on some issues, such as the changes to the small claims limit for whiplash—with which the Government are not going ahead either—the Government are not slavishly following the insurance industry’s agenda, as they have previously. They are following that agenda most of the time, but not all the time.
Having now resiled from those positions, the Government cannot rely on the changes as a reason for not going ahead with the review and for not persisting with mesothelioma as a special case. All they are left with is the proposed reforms described in the consultation. That is a completely circular argument that takes us back to exactly where we were when the Government tried in the first place to say that the changes to CFAs and ATE premiums should apply to mesothelioma as they do to everything else. All the Government are saying is, “We were right all along. We had to say something to get our legislation through, but we never had any intention of complying with it. We have gone forward.”
Finally, I remind the Minister of the points made by Paul Goggins during our consideration of both the LASPO Act and the Mesothelioma Bill. The problem with the new cost regime is, first, that a successful claimant will pay up to 25% of their general damages as success fees. Secondly, to mitigate that attack on their damages, a claimant will have to shop around for a cheaper lawyer. Thirdly, the qualified one-way costs shifting does not provide a complete defence against costs. It does not address disbursement, part 36 offers or issues where a court decides that a claim has been misconducted. Finally, there are far fewer lawyers who will be able under the new regime to take on such cases. It may be that not only will people have to pay their own costs out of the damages but they may not be able to bring the case at all. That is without going into the problems of complexity and difficulty that, under the most difficult circumstances, mesothelioma claimants already have to deal with, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford have said.
With all those problems, which affect other personal injury and civil claims but which many Members of both Houses believe particularly apply in mesothelioma cases, the Government should honour their commitment to doing a proper review and a proper report explaining why, if they wish to persist with applying sections 44 and 46, they intend to do so. They should not do that in such a flippant and offhand way.
Perhaps the Minister could take the Secretary of State’s hint and go back to consult properly by calling for evidence on exactly what will be the consequences of applying sections 44 and 46. If he did that, he would find overwhelming evidence that mesothelioma sufferers are a particular case and that the Government’s commitments should be honoured. I end on that point, but I ask the Minister to tell us what the Government’s plans are, to justify the Government’s intended actions and to tell us whether he will now go away, properly consider the matter and honour the pledges made by his predecessors when the LASPO Act was considered by both Houses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I echo the words uttered about our former colleague, Paul Goggins. If Paul was with us, there is no doubt that he would have been in the Chamber with us today, expressing his views as passionately as he always did. Paul spoke with conviction and passion on a number of issues, and he will be sorely missed by all of us. He was a true parliamentarian, and a very decent parliamentarian at that. We will all miss him.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) on securing this important debate. I commend him on the passion with which he spoke. All Members from across the political divide have spoken on this important subject with conviction and passion.
A number of issues have been raised, and I hope to be able to address some of them in the time remaining. I refer colleagues to the last sentence of the written ministerial statement of 4 December 2013:
“The Government will publish their response to the consultation, and the report under section 48 of the LASPO Act, shortly.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 56WS.]
The report is not something that is not going to appear; it will appear. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that today’s debate is in response to a request by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. That request was made before the report was published, but it will be forthcoming.
Other issues were raised. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) referred to comments by the Lord Chancellor. He rightly referred to consultation, and we hope to consult further with stakeholders to try to ensure that we improve the claims process. I will return to that.
Kate Green
I note the final sentence of the written ministerial statement. Presumably the report, which must be in the Minister’s hands by now, offered sufficient information and analysis to enable the Government to make their decision, so will he explain what has held up its publication for almost two months?
Mr Vara
I hope the hon. Lady will agree that, given the sensitivity and importance of the matter, it is right and proper that we should make known to the public our broad thrust of thought, rather than people having to wait a further few months before the report comes out. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) secured a debate when there was much agitation about the timing of the review, what it would say and so on. I am sorry if trying to be helpful is now being held against the Government.
Let me say at the outset that the Government recognise that mesothelioma is a terrible disease and has a devastating impact on the families of its sufferers. We take very seriously the plight of sufferers and their right to be able to claim compensation for negligently caused personal injury. The subject is, understandably, emotive, and that has been demonstrated in our heartfelt and thorough debate today, as well as during the passage through both Houses of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Debates on LASPO included consideration of the Government’s reforms to no win, no fee conditional fee agreements, or CFAs, and led to the limited exception of mesothelioma cases, to which I will return shortly.
This debate has highlighted the importance of the issue, and the Government wholeheartedly agree that, given the short life expectancy after the disease has been diagnosed, it is imperative that there is early payment of compensation when necessary. That is why we announced on 4 December 2013 that we will explore whether more can be done to improve the compensation claims process.
I appreciate that today’s debate has been about the Government’s decision to remove the limited exception from no win, no fee reforms in relation to mesothelioma cases. I want to deal with three main issues. The first is why our reforms to CFAs are the right way forward, and the second is the limited exception to these rules in respect of mesothelioma claims and the circumstances in which that exception will end; thirdly, I want to clarify the position relating to the section 48 review and how it was carried out.
I will start by setting out briefly the rationale for our changes to CFAs. Many mesothelioma claims are funded under such agreements. Legal aid has not been available for some time. The previous Government’s Access to Justice Act 1999 removed legal aid for the majority of personal injury cases, including mesothelioma cases, when alternative forms of funding, such as CFAs, were available. As hon. Members will know, the Government have introduced reforms in England and Wales relating to the way that civil cases are funded, and the costs involved in bringing those cases. Those reforms are set out in part 2 of LASPO and took forward recommendations by Lord Justice Jackson, a distinguished Court of Appeal judge.
Hon. Members will be aware that Lord Justice Jackson had been asked to investigate the high costs of civil litigation, and to make recommendations for reform. He found that the arrangements for CFAs were
“the major contributor to disproportionate costs in civil litigation in England and Wales.”
He recommended that the recovery of success fees and after-the-event insurance from defendants be abolished, saying that that would lead to
“significant costs savings, whilst still enabling those who need access to justice to obtain it.”
The Government accepted the recommendations, and they were implemented in sections 44 and 46 of LASPO, with the reforms coming into effect in April 2013.
These important reforms will generally ensure that meritorious claims can still be pursued, but at a more proportionate cost. As part of our reforms, earlier settlement will be encouraged, and damages for non-pecuniary loss, such as pain, suffering and loss of amenity, will be increased by 10%. The Government agreed with Lord Justice Jackson that the level of such damages in England and Wales was generally low, and that a 10% increase could assist claimants in meeting the costs of the success fee and other funding changes. Lord Justice Jackson argued that in the majority of cases his proposals
“should leave successful claimants no worse off than they are under the current regime”.
Those words are relevant.
During LASPO’s passage through Parliament, the Government accepted that the reforms should not be brought into effect for mesothelioma claims until a review had been carried out of the likely effect of those reforms on such cases. That review provision is in section 48 of the Act. If Parliament had intended the LASPO provisions not to apply to such claims at all, it could have legislated to that effect. In the event, mesothelioma claims were exempted, and Parliament legislated to the effect that the provisions could be commenced for claims following the conduct of a review, as set out in section 48. Of course, we must recognise that a review could lead to a number of possible outcomes—to claims continuing to be exempted from the reforms, or alternatively to the exemption not continuing.
The Government carried out the section 48 review as part of the consultation on reforming mesothelioma cases, which concluded on 2 October 2013. That was a 10-week public consultation, and all interested parties had the opportunity to participate. Some 105 responses were received from interested parties and expert stakeholders on both sides of the debate; that is the specific advantage of a public consultation. The respondents included Thompsons, the personal injury solicitors firm to which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough referred when declaring an interest at the outset of the debate.
Some respondents to the consultation questioned the timing of the review and how it was carried out. However, the Government are satisfied that it meets our obligations under section 48. The Act makes it clear that in conducting the review under section 48, the Government are required to consider the likely effect of sections 44 and 46 on proceedings on a claim for damages in respect of diffuse mesothelioma. That is what we have done.
Comments have been made about the Mesothelioma Bill and the timing of the review. As Members will know, the Government introduced the Bill in May 2013. It creates a compulsory payment scheme for victims who are unable to trace a liable employer, or liable employer liability insurer, from which to claim the damages that are rightly due. The Bill has completed all stages in both Houses and is awaiting Royal Assent. It is an important milestone in ensuring that those who were previously unable to claim can do so when the scheme is up and running.
Andy McDonald
The Minister is concentrating on the Mesothelioma Bill, but we are talking about LASPO. Does he accept that there is no connection between the two?
Mr Vara
I am coming immediately to the point that I anticipated the hon. Gentleman would refer to. In conducting the review, the Government focused their consideration on matters relevant to claims for mesothelioma that are subject to litigation—in other words, where a solvent defendant is identified. The provisions of the Mesothelioma Bill, however, apply to sufferers who cannot trace a defendant to sue for compensation. If claimants are able to identify a defendant, the Mesothelioma Bill is not directly relevant to their claim, and the Government have carefully borne this in mind.
The Government have not therefore taken the Bill into account in relation to litigated cases in respect of the review. However, the Bill is relevant to the timing of the application of sections 44 and 46 of LASPO, since we have always intended to synchronise the implementation of any decision on this matter with other reforms directed at improving the position of mesothelioma sufferers. This was made clear when Parliament agreed the relevant provisions in LASPO. Much was made of that in earlier speeches, so I refer hon. Members to a debate on LASPO on 24 April 2012. The late Paul Goggins asked the then Justice Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly):
“Crucially, how will the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Bill be aligned with the proposals that the Department for Work and Pensions hopes to publish before the summer recess? I would be happy to take an intervention from the Minister if he wishes to make a clear commitment this afternoon that he will not seek to implement the relevant provisions in the Bill unless and until an improved system of compensation is in place.”
My hon. Friend the Justice Minister replied:
“I do not want to give any binding commitments about the process today, because things have not been finalised. However, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that if the process is to be improved by the Department for Work and Pensions, which we hope it will be—he will have some insight into our proposals from the discussions he has had—that could well require DWP legislation, in which case”—
the relevant words—
“we would look to roll the ending of the provisions into the commencement of the DWP provisions. That is how I foresee the process now, but again, I am not making that a commitment.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 838-39.]
The following day, the noble Lord Alton questioned the Justice Minister in the upper House, the noble Lord McNally. Lord Alton asked:
“First, is the Minister able to assure us that there will be absolute synchronisation between the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the mesothelioma provisions in the Bill will not be implemented in advance of the new regime coming into force?”
Later in the debate, Lord McNally responded:
“I can absolutely guarantee that we will work in a synchronised way with the DWP.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2012; Vol. 736, c. 1818 and 1824.]
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) was present at the House of Commons debate. She made a contribution at Hansard column 834—
Kate Green
I accept everything that the Minister has said. Are we to conclude therefore that the connection is simply about synchronisation of timing, and not in any way about synchronisation of approach to treatment of victims, or am I misunderstanding what he is saying?
Mr Vara
I hope that I am clear when I say that it is important that we synchronise the timing, so that everyone affected by this terrible illness knows what the position is, whether or not they have a traceable employer or liable insurer. It is the timing that is at issue. That is what was referred to in the debates in both the upper and lower Houses.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he explain something? We have a group of people way over in the distance with one group of problems—in Weymouth, for example—and another group of people in Wolverhampton with another set of problems. If he addresses one situation, how would that benefit the people in the other place? They are not connected; it is just that he is trying to do things at the same time. Does he not agree with that analysis?
Mr Vara
It was agreed by Parliament in the debate that there would be a synchronisation of what the Department for Work and Pensions did and what we did. That is what has happened. I trust that Members will now allow me to proceed, because a number of issues were raised, and I want to put the Government response on the record.
The Government have carefully considered the likely effect of implementing the LASPO reforms on mesothelioma claims, including the evidence put before us by respondents to the consultation. The issues raised, however, were generally similar to those in other very serious personal injury cases to which the reforms already apply. There was little explanation of any particular feature of the mesothelioma claims process that would lead to a different or disproportionate effect on claimants’ access to justice, should the reforms apply. Ultimately, in our view, there needs to be a specific justification for the continued difference in treatment between mesothelioma cases and other personal injury cases—most particularly, other serious personal injury cases that have their own tragic features involving, as some do, catastrophic injury and the need for substantial care arrangements for the remainder of a claimant’s life, sometimes when the claimant is very young.
Let me emphasis that we entirely understand that mesothelioma victims face an appalling and fatal disease with which they and their families have to come to terms, while also having to engage with the claims process. Without in any way seeking to minimise the distress that this entails, however, there are many other serious personal injury and fatal claims, to which the LASPO reforms already apply, that produce difficult challenges for victims and families.
On 4 December, we announced that we intended to apply sections 44 and 46 of LASPO to diffuse mesothelioma cases from July this year, when the Mesothelioma Bill is expected to be implemented. When the reforms take effect, claimants will be entitled to a 10% increase in general damages. The average general damages for such cases, as set out in the Judicial College guidelines, is £70,000, so that would be an average additional £7,000 in damages.
Claimants will be liable for any success fee claimed by their lawyer, as in any other personal injury case, but there is no requirement for a success fee to be charged. The amount of any success fee is a matter for negotiation between claimants and their lawyer. Claimants will also benefit from costs protection in the form of qualified one-way cost shifting, to protect them from having to pay the other side’s costs if the claim fails. Additionally, the costs of any after-the-event insurance that claimants feel they need in order to deal with defendants’ part 36 offers—a process of negotiation between parties on a reasonable offer for resettlement—are expected to reduce. If a part 36 offer is unreasonable, a claimant is not at risk for rejecting it. Claimant lawyers tend to know what is and is not a reasonable offer. Claimants are of course liable for disbursements in relation to their case, but the general rule in all civil litigation is that reasonable costs will be paid by a losing defendant.
We announced in December that we anticipate publishing the Government’s response some time in the next few weeks. Colleagues will appreciate that we could have waited until we announced the outcome of the consultation, but we were keen to let stakeholders know the outcome as soon as possible, especially on those issues that we are not currently taking forward.
I want to emphasise that the Government firmly support the right of those who suffer from this terrible disease to be able to claim compensation. Over the past 10 years, significant progress has been made in streamlining the process, including in relation to those matters headed by Senior Master Whitaker. We wish to explore further ways of streamlining the process, and we seek the co-operation of the appropriate stakeholders.
The LASPO reforms are about tackling the high cost of civil litigation, rather than questioning the validity of claims. The Government believe that the reforms should apply to all personal injury cases, including those of the utmost severity. We have conducted the review as required, and as soon as we are able to do so, we will publish our report. In the meantime, my thanks again to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough for securing this debate. It is fair to say that we are united on at least one matter: the great importance of this issue.
Elections in Bangladesh
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to have been able to secure this Westminster Hall debate. I welcome the opportunity not only to discuss recent elections in Bangladesh but to talk about the lessons of the past few months—I believe that the UK can learn from those lessons—and the opportunities that are open to us as we help Bangladesh to work towards political stability in the coming years.
Bangladesh is a country that has seen significant progress since its infancy. Responding to the millennium development goals, it has reduced the poverty gap ratio from 17% to 6.5%. Investment in children’s health has resulted in a reduction in the mortality rate of under-fives, and the prevalence of underweight children has almost halved. The World Bank recognises the advances that the country continues to make, suggesting that it will become a middle-income country by 2021.
Clearly, what happens in Bangladesh is hugely important for its prosperity and the life chances of the people living there. However, the recent election has seen those advances undermined by the country’s own political leadership. As we all know, on 5 January, Bangladesh held its 10th general election. On paper at least, it demonstrated overwhelming support for the Awami League, which won 232 of the 300 seats. However, the reality of the election was a turnout that was reported as being as low as 10% and a mass boycott by Opposition parties that meant that half of the seats remained uncontested. Schools used as polling stations were burned down and the lives of 21 were people lost.
We celebrate the progress made by Bangladesh since its modern birth in 1971, but the ongoing mistrust between the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist party and other Opposition parties points to a dysfunctional political climate in which the prospect of free and fair elections seems elusive.
Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this enormously important debate and endorse what he has said about the importance of the progress that Bangladesh has made. Does he agree that one of the fundamental problems with the election was the Awami League’s refusal to follow the precedent of previous elections, whereby there had been a caretaker Government to oversee fair process, foreign observers and the rest, and that that failure and the political thinking behind it led to the tragedy that now confronts us?
Gavin Shuker
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which has been much debated not just in the House but further afield. The events running up to the election were deeply regrettable. The question whether it was right to press on with the elections will perhaps be left for others to decide—or even for history. Right now, it is vital that the international community takes a lead—as the UK has—in saying that the elections were neither free nor fair and, for that reason, were not right.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing and leading this debate. Like me, he probably has a large number of people from Bangladesh in his constituency. Obviously, they are extremely concerned about what happens back home, to use an expression, because that can have effects here. The absence of an interim Government to oversee the elections was certainly a major setback in a country that is now moving from third-world status and lifting the living standards of its people. Does he agree with me that the United Nations and other international organisations should put pressure on the Bangladeshi Government to stop harassing and jeering the Opposition?
Gavin Shuker
Indeed. In the excellent debate we had in this House a few weeks ago on the political situation in Bangladesh, a recurring theme was concern about human rights abuses and the failure to follow the rule of law adequately in political discussions. It is important to keep that in the forefront of our minds.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done on this issue and for calling for this debate. He has raised a point that has been raised before in the Chamber: there was a real lack of democratic credibility for the elections that took place. That is the past. The question I have for him—and for the Minister—is about how we move forward. Does he agree that the international community needs to work with the current Government in Bangladesh and urge them to work with the Opposition to work out a time frame and a framework for a future election that will have that democratic credibility?
Gavin Shuker
It is an excellent point. What is required in a situation such as this, where there appears to be deadlock, is for the international community to play an appropriate role. I will go on to speak about Britain’s unique role and ability to help in that regard.
We have that role not least because we are a major investor in Bangladesh: in this calendar year, the Department for International Development will spend around £275 million in Bangladesh. Around a third of that will go directly to the Bangladeshi Government, and a significant proportion of the money that will be spent is aimed at boosting political participation and promoting safety and justice. One programme that falls into that category, called Strengthening Political Participation in Bangladesh, holds three clear goals: first, to make political parties more responsive to citizens and their interests; secondly, to strengthen core democratic institutions, namely the Bangladesh Electoral Commission and Parliament; and thirdly, to ensure that civil society advocates effectively for a more accountable and responsible political system. Despite the commencement of that programme four years ago in 2009, the 2014 election was notable for its success in weakening all three objectives.
The ongoing political conflict has a damaging effect not only on empowerment and accountability but on other things. The Centre for Policy Dialogue has estimated a total economic loss of over £3.8 billion as a result of the conflict around the election caused by blockades and ongoing political turmoil. That loss has hit the transport industry, the agricultural sector and the clothing and textiles industry hardest. Those are three sectors in which Bangladesh must succeed if it is to reach its goal of becoming a middle-income country.
It is only right that in this scenario DFID should reflect on the relative success of the programmes that are funded in conjunction with the United States Agency for International Development and amount to aid of over £56 million over a five-year period. Arguably, their success is questionable. The issue is complex—I am not suggesting that the programmes simply do not work, or that they should be junked or the money withdrawn—and DFID Ministers should look urgently at how that money is spent, so that it can be fully effective in engaging and empowering voters across the country.
An internal review of the programmes would be helpful, as through them we have the potential to shape a relatively young country, and shape a structure that is fair and sustainable. That must be done quickly, as tensions remain high and local elections will take place over the coming months. Will the Minister reflect on that in his discussions with the Department for International Development and, in his reply, will he commit the Government to publishing the findings of the DFID review that is already being spoken about? There is scope for reviewing all in-country programmes in Bangladesh, to assess whether they have made an adequate contribution to building political governance and civic society.
There are no easy answers for the international community as to whether it was right to press ahead with elections or to work to maintain an interim or caretaker Government. I reiterate what I said earlier this month during the excellent debate in the Chamber: whatever someone’s view on that question, it was right, as a nation, to issue statements to make it clear that the elections were neither free nor fair. We are not alone in feeling a responsibility to make public our concerns about the Bangladeshi people caught up in this conflict. The elections have not only encouraged a reaction from the UK Government, from Members who participated in a Back-Bench business debate earlier this month and from those who are here today, but they have led to an international response. Julie Bishop, the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, has called for new elections, stating:
“The government and the opposition must take up their shared responsibility to hold a new, fully contested and transparent election as soon as possible.”
She has also said:
“It is vital that the people of Bangladesh are able to express their democratic will and exercise real choice.”
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the Australian Foreign Minister’s comment that there should be elections “soon”. In Pakistan, for example, General Zia said when he took over as dictator that elections would be held soon, and that went on for many years. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to secure a time frame for new, fresh elections, rather than simply saying “Elections will take place soon”, which may mean by the end of the five-year term.
Gavin Shuker
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The timetable will come about not by our imposing it from on high but through negotiation with the interested parties. We are talking about the general election, but we are about to roll into a period of local elections in Bangladesh. In whatever we do, we must look first and foremost to the immediate window ahead of us to try to build capacity in the democratic process. If we can build faith in the democratic process through the local elections, that may move through to the other elections.
Rehman Chishti
The hon. Gentleman says that we should move forward and that people should take part in the local elections. Does he really think that the Opposition, who say they have been prevented from taking part in those full and fair elections, will put up candidates in local elections? I believe that that is very unlikely.
Gavin Shuker
We can only go on the statements of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, and I am encouraged that the party has confirmed that it will take part in the elections. I sincerely hope that parties can be equally engaged in a fair and democratic process that empowers voters. The hon. Gentleman’s scepticism is completely understandable in the circumstances. We must not be cynical, but it is incumbent on all of us to be sceptical about the statements that have been released. As we know, a series of statements have been put out and rescinded in the past.
The deputy spokesperson of the US State Department has said that
“the results of the just-concluded elections do not appear to credibly express the will of the Bangladeshi people”,
and called for new elections to be held “as soon as possible.” The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs called on parties to resume dialogue and to demonstrate “calm and restraint”. In Germany, the Federal Foreign Office stated that the election was an extremely poor reflection of the electorate’s will. Even the Japanese ambassador to Dhaka, Shiro Sadoshima, said that
“the political leadership in Bangladesh, regardless of their positions, should immediately initiate serious efforts to provide Bangladeshi people with a voting opportunity for making political choice in a manner that responds to their aspiration.”
Not all countries have been as helpful however; Russia, India, China, Vietnam and Nepal have come out in support of the new Government.
It is right to condemn human rights abuses—a subject that we do not have time to go into today—committed by all sides, but we must not lose sight of the imminent needs of the Bangladeshi people. We must encourage the President to act on the assurances given to work with the 18-party alliance. We must discourage the personal exchanges that have occurred between party leaders, because such actions have enormous implications for their ability to work together in the interests of Bangladesh. We should call for the release of the many political prisoners who have been detained in the run-up to the presidential election and who await bail. That is happening, but clearly not fast enough. I ask the Minister to reflect on that in his response.
We must also celebrate some signs of progress. As I have said, Bangladesh has plans in place for this year’s local elections, and it is incumbent on us to ask what practical support is necessary to ensure that those, and the subsequent phases in March and May this year, happen cleanly. It goes without saying that Britain, where half a million members of the Bangladeshi diaspora live, should continue to play a significant role. Those individuals remind us of Britain’s historical relationship with Bangladesh, our privileged role as a member of the UN Security Council, our position as a key member of the Commonwealth, our relationship with the USA and other English-speaking nations and our seat at the heart of Europe. Working from this place with our partners, I hope that Britain will make the contribution that only it can to help the people of Bangladesh take the step up to the fully democratic system that they deserve.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Our man at the Foreign Office, Mr Hugh Robertson.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone—although perhaps not for that introduction, to be honest. May I begin by saying that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) for securing this important debate? I apologise to him at the outset for not being the Minister with direct responsibility for Bangladesh, but I read the Backbench Business Committee debate from 16 January before this debate and I give him a commitment that I will ensure that his remarks today are passed to Baroness Warsi and, in view of the comments he made, to my ministerial counterparts in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
It was clear from reading the report of that debate that Members on both sides of the House share a common commitment to the well-being, future prosperity and stable democratic development of Bangladesh, but considerable concerns have been expressed about all three areas. As the hon. Gentleman said, the relationship between the UK and Bangladesh is strong, with considerable ties of history and family. We want to promote a shared belief in democracy, good governance and sustainable development. He is right to say that the recent election in Bangladesh fell drastically short of the ideals we would expect. Our response falls into three areas. First, we expressed public regret at the lack of participation and the scenes of violence. Secondly, we call on Bangladesh’s political parties to begin a dialogue that finds a long-term, sustainable solution, in a way that does not exist at the moment, for the good of Bangladesh’s people. Thirdly, we recognise that a proper functioning democracy, as we would understand it, is vital for Bangladesh’s future security and prosperity. I shall take each of those in turn.
Successive British Governments have believed that peaceful, credible elections that express the will of the voters are the true mark of a mature, functioning democracy. The 10th parliamentary elections, held in Bangladesh on 5 January, were constitutionally correct, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, but the main Opposition party did not participate. Indeed, half the electorate did not get the chance to vote. There must therefore be concern as to whether the will of the Bangladeshi people has been properly reflected and whether the elections met the goals of a true democracy.
In the run-up to those elections, the UK engaged with all political parties in a number of ways, calling on them to ensure full, open and participatory elections. My honourable and noble Friend Baroness Warsi delivered the same message personally to leaders of the ruling and Opposition parties when she visited on 12 December. Her public statement on 6 January expressed our disappointment at the election outcome and condemned the acts of intimidation and unlawful political violence. Those acts are striking: more than 500 people are believed to have lost their life as a result of political violence in 2013; 21 deaths were reported on polling day; and more than 100 polling centres, many of which were schools and colleges in poor rural areas, were burned down. By any standard, that is shocking. The deaths and destruction sadden me, as I know they sadden Members on both sides of the House.
We remain deeply concerned about the deaths and the continued political harassment, and the heightened political tensions that underlie them. However, as the hon. Gentleman said in his well-balanced and fair speech, there have been some positive moves recently. We are pleased that the Bangladesh Nationalist party has condemned the violence and announced a suspension of its enforced strikes and transport blockades. The relaxation of police restrictions at Opposition party offices and the granting of bail for some BNP leaders by the High Court brings some promise, but it is not nearly enough. Further bold moves by all sides are needed if the needs and wishes of the people of Bangladesh are going to be met and put first. As he said in his balanced speech, in the meantime, the UK continues to do what it can to support Bangladesh and its democracy.
We remain absolutely committed to supporting the Bangladesh development goals, as laid out in the millennium development goals. Between 2011 and 2015, as the hon. Gentleman said, our support will lift 1.5 million people out of extreme poverty, provide access to safe water for 1.3 million people and ensure that 500,000 boys and girls complete their primary school education. I am pleased that UK aid is working to improve governance in Bangladesh. It is vital to develop a political system that is more capable, more accountable and much more responsive than it is at the moment. I will ensure that the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made are brought to the attention of DFID Ministers.
The hon. Gentleman briefly mentioned the support that was given around election time. The UK supported the Bangladesh Election Commission and work was done to update the voters register, train polling officials and develop new systems to publish candidates’ details, including declarations of wealth, which I imagine is a controversial topic in that part of the world. Notwithstanding the outcome of the poll, we believe that those improvements will stand the Government in good stead in future elections.
Unless the hon. Gentleman particularly wants to raise anything else, I shall end where I began; by congratulating him on securing the debate and on the tone with which he led it, and by thanking him for his continued interest in the country. It is shared by many across the House. Bangladesh is an important partner for the United Kingdom and we will continue to support its people in their aspirations, as we see them, for a more stable, prosperous and democratic future. In doing that, however, it is important that we never shy away from delivering tough messages to the political leadership to try and ensure that those expectations are fulfilled.
Morecambe Bay Disaster (Aftermath)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
First, may I express my mixed emotions about introducing this debate on the cockle picking disaster that took place 10 years ago, in 2004? I have mixed emotions because I am extremely honoured to represent Morecambe and Lunesdale, but the event that we are talking about is a great scar on my community and our whole nation.
Morecambe bay is one of the most picturesque places on earth, but it is also an unforgiving environment that can claim lives in minutes. I have always found it hard to reconcile the sedate appearance with the dangerous reality. In 2004, many people believed that the risks associated with Morecambe bay had been mitigated. After all, we had been offering guided tours under professional supervision for years, warning signs were all around and in any case the amount of onshore fishing had declined. Given that background, it is easy to see why the people of Morecambe felt such a profound sense of shock and sadness when the events of 5 February unfolded.
Before I make any comments on the 10 years since the cockle pickers’ tragedy or what we should do in the future, perhaps it is worth remembering what happened. On 5 February 2004, a group of some 38 illegal immigrants from China were working to collect cockles near Hest Bank, which is the northern part of the bay. Shockingly, they were being paid £1 per kilogram of cockles—a desperately low wage by anyone’s standard. As the day drew on, a team of British cockle pickers tried to signal the Chinese workers and warn them that the tide was coming in. Given the distance, they tapped their watches and tried to speak to them, seemingly to no avail. At about 9.30 pm, the Chinese cockle pickers were cut off by the incoming tide. It is a long-held belief locally that they were waiting for the evening to come, as cockles come to the surface at night.
When it was clear that the cockle pickers were in trouble, they phoned the emergency services for help. Sadly, what followed was fairly confused, for the following reasons. It was quite dark, and a basic description of the location was unlikely to enable emergency services to pinpoint exactly where they were. The cockle pickers were not fluent in English and found it hard to explain their predicament. The phone call was unclear, and the severity of the situation was not successfully conveyed to the emergency services. All of that led to delays that undoubtedly cost lives. In the end, 23 people, mainly from Fujian province in China, lost their lives. Just 15 people escaped. Sadly, one body has never been found.
In the aftermath of the cockle pickers’ tragedy, the gangmaster, Lin Liang Ren, was sentenced to 14 years in prison. He had sent a group of people who had little or no experience of Morecambe bay out without any proper guidance or supervision to their deaths. Anyone who knows Morecambe bay will say that sending people out in that way is unforgivable. Indeed, Lin Liang Ren was described in court as a callous man, motivated by money. The men and women he exploited paid a heavy price for that cavalier and greedy attitude. Not only did many die, but all of them had paid enormous sums to be smuggled into the UK in the first place.
In June 2007, the Guardian newspaper reported on the plight of the family of Wu Hong Kang, who was killed on 5 February 2004. His wife and children bear a debt of nearly £20,000 to pay for his transit to the UK, yet their monthly income is just £20. They have no prospect of ever paying off that sum. At first glance, we might say to ourselves that they should not pay the debt. After all, what was done was illegal, so perhaps the authorities could step in. Sadly, the reality is that the gang collected the money many years ago. The debt is to friends and family who put up the money for Mr Wu’s transport, and these are people who cannot afford to write off the debt. I have no idea what it must be like to be paying a crippling debt for something that ultimately killed a loved one.
In 2005, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) introduced a private Member’s Bill that ultimately created the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. I want to place on the record the gratitude of the people of Morecambe and Lunesdale for his work on this issue and for the work of my predecessor, Geraldine Smith. Like all bodies, the GLA is not perfect, but the 2005 Act set the groundwork for much of the work that is being done to protect these vulnerable workers’ lives.
Obviously, a range of national and international issues have been raised by this disaster, and the 10th anniversary is the time to review what work has been done and what has yet to be done, but before that, I want to talk to my hon. Friend the Minister about some very localised issues. I take the view that, no matter how much we regulate gangmasters and reduce illegal immigration, and no matter what the salaries we pay to workers, no one should be out in the middle of Morecambe bay unless they are properly trained and supervised and are aware of the dangers of their working environment. No amount of general employment regulation will ever be enough in such an environment. For that reason, I believe we should be licensing people to undertake onshore fishing in the bay. The aim would be not to stop people making a living, but to ensure that when teams go out they possess the proper skills required to work both profitably and safely.
With the right training and knowledge, Morecambe bay need not be a dangerous environment. In fact, tour guides take people out daily with no problems. We must recognise, however, that they can do so because local knowledge and experience are paramount. Teams of onshore fishermen who do not hold such a level of knowledge are endangering themselves, their staff and the emergency services that might have to intervene. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend the Minister update me on the progress of the Morecambe bay hybrid fishery order? I know that it has a number of facets to it, but how does he believe it will protect vulnerable workers in future? Also, when will it be implemented in full, what has happened up until now and what have been the hold-ups? I am sure he will agree that, whatever national issues were faced in the aftermath, we have a duty to get the regulation right for the bay and for offshore fisheries around the nation.
The tragedy raised national and international issues. Nationally, we have the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. I know that there have been discussions about what changes might be made to it as we approach the 10th anniversary of the disaster. With that in mind, what lessons have been learned from its first nine years in operation? Does it need any reform or change of scope? What impact has it made in reducing the abuse of vulnerable workers? I should say that I am not tied to any one system; if reform is needed I am happy to work with anyone to look at it. It is important to the people I represent that we feel we are doing all that we can to ensure that we balance protection for employees with a viable system that will not damage the economics of food production.
There is no point in having this debate if we do not touch on the problem of illegal immigration. The cockle pickers’ disaster demonstrated that, at best, illegal immigrants and their families are small cogs in far larger and more sinister criminal gangs. At worst, they are nothing more than victims. Most are from poor backgrounds, forced to leave their home countries due to extreme poverty. We all know that we have a problem with illegal immigration in this country, and I am glad that we are taking steps to deal with it because I believe that it is far worse for the immigrants themselves. As I said earlier, they are forced to pay enormous sums of money to be herded like cattle into container trucks.
There are numerous examples of Chinese immigrants being carried to the UK in appalling conditions. In 2000, 58 Chinese immigrants died of suffocation when they were packed into a consignment of tomatoes. The Dutch lorry driver, Mr Perry Wacker, closed the air vents of his refrigerated truck on the ferry from Belgium to Dover. After he was sentenced to 14 years, the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor Karen Wiseman said:
“The smuggling of humans has become as profitable as drugs. This trade hinges on the promise that at the end of the journey the illegal immigrants are heading for a better life. Tragically for these 58 victims, commercial gain took precedence over human life.”
Only two people survived that incident, and it only came to light because customs searched the lorry. Once again, each person had paid £20,000 for their passage to the UK.
We just do not know whether any similar tragedies have taken place without being detected. The solution is not simple, but what assessment has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made on the level of illegal labour in the agricultural industry? What steps are being taken both in the UK and across the world to reduce the number of criminal gangs operating in the sector? How are we working to educate people around the world about the reality of what it is like to be transported to the UK and treated in such a manner?
Members from all parties recognise that the matter is complex, and that no single magic wand will resolve the issues around the exploitation of vulnerable workers. That said, I do think that in the past 10 years we have taken significant steps towards making such workers’ lives safer. Enforcement at ports has been tightened up, the GLA has enforced against unscrupulous employers, and the Morecambe bay hybrid fishery order will soon be in place.
Before I finish, I would like to put on the record my personal thanks and those of the whole community for the work of the emergency services 10 years ago, particularly Harry Roberts from the RNLI, a former colleague of my father who led the rescue of the cockle pickers and undoubtedly saved lives.
We are not going to solve the issues of Triad gangs overnight and we are not going to stop people desperately seeking a better life, but we owe it to our community to drive forward enforcement and work on illegal immigration and improvements in the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. We owe it to those who have suffered so much hardship and trauma as a result of the disaster 10 years ago. It must never happen again.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) on securing this timely debate. I thank him and the Minister for allowing me to speak briefly on this important matter.
The hon. Gentleman will know that on that night 10 years ago, the cockle pickers could just as easily have set off from the Furness end of Morecambe bay, had the tides been different. Indeed, those gangs were a regular sight, going on to the sands from the coast road between Aldingham and Rampside. His predecessor, Geraldine Smith, and my predecessor, now Lord Hutton, were strongly involved in establishing the Gangmasters Licensing Authority after the tragedy, to try to ensure that this horrible activity—and the way that these people were being abused and exploited—could not happen again.
Let me, too, call on the Minister to respond on his Government’s commitment to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. It was recommended for abolition in the Beecroft review. I understand that there is a firm commitment from the Government not to enact that recommendation, but it is important that the Minister puts that on record and shows that he understands and hears the calls. The rush to abolish regulations and strip away so-called burdens on business can sometimes target the essential element of safety, and we could also end up with people who want to observe safety standards, as many of our local cockle pickers did and do, finding themselves undercut by these horrible, unscrupulous practices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) on securing this debate, which is poignant and relevant to his constituency. The 10th anniversary next week of the tragic events in Morecambe bay is indeed an appropriate time to reflect on developments since. As my hon. Friend said, we know that the Morecambe bay sands are no stranger to loss of life over many centuries; it is, as he said, a beautiful yet treacherous place.
On the evening of 5 February 2004, some 40 Chinese workers were picking cockles on the sands, sent by their gangmaster. For him, maximising profits meant cutting corners, ignoring tidal information and flouting basic safety rules. As night closed in, hours after they should have been told to leave the sands, the workers realised the tide had come up too fast for them to escape and they were stranded. The bodies of 21 men and women were recovered from the bay in the next few days. There were two further known victims: one was not found until 2010 and, as my hon. Friend said, one has never been found.
The victims were illegal immigrants, inexperienced, untrained and with poor English language skills. Their gangmaster, Lin Liang Ren, was eventually convicted of 21 counts of manslaughter, facilitating illegal immigration and perverting the course of justice. In sentencing him to 14 years’ imprisonment, the judge at Preston Crown court said he was motivated by greed to exploit his countrymen shockingly with no heed for their safety.
The causes of the 2004 tragedy stem from the management of the foreshore fisheries at the time and employment legislation that allowed ruthless exploitation of workers and neglect of safety to go unchecked. The Government’s response addressed both those aspects. Following the disaster, the north-western sea fisheries committee and later the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority instituted a raft of measures through a succession of byelaws to regulate access better to the fishery, including tighter permit conditions to improve safety standards. In specific terms, the number of permits issued has been reduced from 2,000 in 2004 to 120 now. In addition and more importantly, in order to be granted a permit to fish for cockles, applicants must now complete a safety course which, as my hon. Friend rightly said, is so important.
Those measures and others will be taken forward in the proposed Morecambe bay fishery order, which is due to be consulted on in the near future. I know that my hon. Friend expressed frustration that there is no time scale for that. Beyond saying “in the near future”, I am unable to give him a specific time scale at this point, but after today’s debate, I will ask officials to make inquiries about the exact status of the order and when he can expect it to be introduced, so that it can be signed off and put in place. When in place, the order will allow for more long-term and adaptive management of the entire mollusc fishery, including the cockle beds. Most importantly, safety measures imposed through the proposed order will be more stringent than those that are in place now.
In response to the disaster 10 years ago, the Government adopted a private Member’s Bill, introduced by the then hon. Member for Renfrewshire West, now the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), resulting in the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. That established the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to regulate the supply of labour in the shellfish, agriculture, food processing and packaging sectors. The GLA’s role provides protection to vulnerable workers, including taking action against criminals, while operating an effective licensing regime to ensure that standards are maintained and to prevent exploitation.
Casual labour agencies in the agricultural sector perform an important function. The seasonal nature of harvests in areas such as horticulture means that flexible labour arrangements are crucial. Most operators in the sector are responsible and compliant businesses, and GLA licensing enables the well-regulated supply of casual labour to the sector. We know, however, that there will always be a small minority who ignore the rules.
Since beginning operations in 2006, the GLA has issued more than 2,500 licences, and there are currently just under 1,000 licence holders. In that time, the agency has brought 67 successful prosecutions—43 for unlicensed gangmasters, 23 for using an unlicensed gangmaster, and one for obstructing an investigation—and in the past three years, it has helped to recover some £4 million for casual staff who have either been underpaid or had unfair deductions taken from their pay. The GLA has also revoked licences in 203 cases, where the holder has breached licensing standards on pay, safety and other matters.
Most court sentences result in fines of between £300 and £5,000, community service and probation orders or suspended sentences. It is important to note that that is to be expected since we would want fines and penalties to be proportionate to the breach committed. However, we should also note that there is scope for custodial sentences in extreme cases. In a landmark decision last December, the first custodial sentence was handed down; a man in Norfolk was jailed for seven years for acting as an unlicensed gangmaster. It was an extreme case, involving violence and intimidation, and the individual built up an organised crime group responsible for placing large numbers of vulnerable people from Lithuania in substandard accommodation, demanding high rents and charging for finding them work in local GLA-sector industries. What that case illustrates is that the law can and does provide the powers to deal with a full range of incidents that the GLA encounters, from minor breaches right through to criminal abuse and intimidation.
The Government have made it clear that they want the GLA to focus more on the worst excesses in the areas that it regulates and work more closely with other agencies that tackle crime, while stripping out unnecessary burdens on the majority of compliant businesses. I would say that the GLA is doing that. In September 2013, as part of the round of action to ensure that public bodies remain fit for purpose, a triennial review was announced, which provides an opportunity to test robustly the requirement that the GLA is operating and is organised as effectively as possible.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) asked for reassurance on the Government’s intentions regarding the GLA. The GLA has been considered by several reviews in recent years, including the red tape challenge and the 2010 public bodies review. The triennial review, which will be published shortly, provides an opportunity to consider whether we can better organise the authority to address the challenges that we face.
I will shortly publish a statement on the GLA triennial review, but I will outline the main points today because I have been specifically asked about our intentions. The review will conclude that the functions of the GLA are necessary and that the GLA remains the right body to deliver them. We will also conclude that the GLA should remain a non-departmental public body and should continue to deliver reforms already in train to reduce financial and administrative burdens on compliant businesses and to focus effort on enforcement. We believe that reforms to the GLA board should happen as soon as possible to bring about a smaller, better structured board that is able to provide a clear strategic direction for the authority.
The GLA is already proceeding with reforms to remove burdens on the majority of compliant businesses by removing the need for all applicants to receive an application inspection and by introducing longer-term licences. That fits with the Government’s commitment to have safeguards in place to monitor those businesses that are at risk of breaking the law while enabling law-abiding, compliant businesses to get on with business unhindered.
The GLA is not alone in taking steps to mitigate the risks to vulnerable workers. On 16 December 2013, the Home Secretary published the draft Modern Slavery Bill, which would consolidate existing human trafficking and slavery offences; increase the maximum sentence available from 14 years to life imprisonment; restrict the activities of offenders and those who pose a risk to others; and require statutory bodies, such as the GLA, to report all victims of human trafficking to the National Crime Agency, which the GLA currently does routinely.
The draft Bill will now be subject to a period of pre-legislative scrutiny. The answer to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale on what more we are doing to address extreme abuse of vulnerable workers is contained in the draft Bill.
John Woodcock
I thank the Minister for giving us those details ahead of the review. The issue will be difficult, and hon. Members will want to be able to scrutinise the draft Bill if it is genuinely to increase the level of protection, rather than simply cut costs. Will he commit to an oral statement in the House when he publishes the review, so that Members may ask questions?
George Eustice
We will publish the review when it is ready, and there will be a written ministerial statement. I hope the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been generous in giving him foresight of the key elements of that review. This debate is an opportunity for us to set out our intentions. The review is a detailed document, and I am sure he will find all the information that he wants. If, subsequent to that, he would like to challenge me in another debate, he has a right to call for such a debate.
In conclusion, the events that occurred at Morecambe bay a decade ago were a terrible yet avoidable tragedy. I hope that I have persuaded hon. Members that lessons have been learned. We are in a better place than we were 10 years ago, but we are not complacent. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale that much has been done to ensure that such a tragedy is never repeated. I will get in touch with him and make inquiries to see whether we can progress the order that he seeks sooner rather than later.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Northern Ireland Security Situation
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
This is the fifth bi-annual update to the House on the security situation in Northern Ireland and my third such statement as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Overall situation
The latter half of 2013 saw persistent planning and targeting by terrorists, evidenced by a significant number of attacks with lethal intent taking place in the weeks before Christmas. Many more such attempts have been disrupted. Overall, the number of national security attacks remains broadly comparable with previous years. The threat continues to be tackled and suppressed and there have been some significant successes by the security forces which should bring both immediate and longer-term benefits.
While we must remain vigilant about the threat from terrorism in Northern Ireland we must not allow it to overshadow the many positives to emerge from 2013, not least the successful hosting of both the G8 summit and the world police and fire games. That such high profile events passed without any significant security incidents taking place is a major achievement. High levels of cross-border police co-operation continue to be a crucial part of efforts to combat terrorism and keep people in Northern Ireland safe. Working relationships between PSNI and An Garda Siochana are excellent. At a meeting in December between Commissioner Martin Callinan and Chief Constable Matt Baggott, along with Justice Ministers Alan Shatter and David Ford, it was agreed that consideration would be given to whether there are ways in which co-operation between the two police services could be further strengthened and updated.
Security situation in Northern Ireland
The threat level in Northern Ireland and Great Britain has remained unchanged since my last statement to Parliament in July 2013. All threat levels, of course, are kept under constant review.
There were 30 national security attacks in Northern Ireland during 2013, over half of which took place between October and December. Had it not been for the tremendous efforts of the PSNI and their security partners in disrupting and preventing further attacks, this figure would undoubtedly have been higher. I thank the PSNI, MIS and An Garda Siochana (AGS), for their relentless and effective pursuit of the very small, but violent, minority who favour terrorism over democracy. I also wish to pay tribute to army technical officers whose expertise and courage has undoubtedly prevented injury in recent months.
As in previous years, attacks have varied in their level of sophistication. Police officers and military personnel have continued to be primary targets for dissident groups. PSNI officers in particular have faced relentless targeting in the last six months. In addition to pipe bombs attacks against police patrols and devices sent by post to senior officers, in December PSNI officers narrowly avoided injury after their vehicles were fired upon in north Belfast. Three men were subsequently arrested and charged in connection with this incident.
There have also been a number of significant attacks on commercial targets. In November, a taxi was hijacked in the Ardoyne area of North Belfast and its driver forced to drive to Belfast city centre with an IED on board. The device later partially exploded close to the Victoria square shopping centre. Had it functioned fully, it would have caused significant damage and injury.
Only weeks later an IED was placed in Belfast’s cathedral quarter, an area popular for its bars and restaurants and busy with those celebrating the festive season. Although only a small device, an erroneous warning about its location meant that it exploded before the police could fully clear the area. Fortunately, due to the vigilance of the public and the prompt response of the PSNI, there were no injuries.
These indiscriminate and reckless attempts to intimidate and to damage Belfast’s thriving retail and entertainment sectors highlighted a complete disregard of terrorist groups for the people and businesses at the forefront of Northern Ireland’s economic recovery. The attacks were not, however, successful and the resilience displayed by both individuals and businesses in the face of this disruption stood in stark contrast to the cowardice of those responsible for the attacks.
In September, a viable explosive device which could have killed or caused serious injury was discovered close to a special school in Lurgan. In October, postal workers and public officials were exposed to potential injury after letter bombs were sent to senior police officers and public figures. These were intercepted before they could cause injury but, once again, these acts demonstrate a blatant disregard for the safety of people working in the community.
Security alerts, hoaxes and so called “come-on” attacks also caused disruption to many in the second half of 2013, including through road and rail closures and evacuations. For the individuals, families, communities, commuters and businesses affected, this is frustrating and hugely inconvenient.
Successes and disruptions
The PSNI and MIS continue to devote all the resources required to tackle the threat and bring those responsible for these attacks to justice. Since my last statement, there have been a number of significant disruptions, arrests and convictions as well as seizures of arms and IED components.
In December, following a PSNI/MI5 operation, three individuals were charged with a number of serious terrorist offences: conspiracy to murder members of the security forces, conspiracy to possess explosives with intent to endanger life and membership of the IRA. Two of the three individuals were further charged with aiding and abetting the attempted murder of police officers on 5 December 2013 and with aiding and abetting the possession of firearms on the same date.
An operation in Forkhill, south Armagh, conducted jointly by PSNI and An Garda Siochana on 18 December led to a significant discovery of home-made explosives and equipment for bomb making and highlighted the importance and value of joint working with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland. I congratulate the PSNI and AGS on their successes and look forward to further such co-operation.
A number of dissidents have also been found guilty of offences related to terrorist activity. In January, Gavin Coyle was sentenced to a total of 10 years after admitting having guns and explosives with intent to endanger life and being a member of a dissident republican organisation. It followed the discovery in 2011 of the arms and explosives which included assault rifles and Semtex. The operation undoubtedly saved lives and now those involved are being held to account through the justice system. In a separate case, four other men caught with guns and ammunition in Omagh were sentenced to a total of 36 years.
Dissident republican paramilitary groups
The so-called “new IRA” has continued to pose a significant threat over the last six months and has repeatedly demonstrated its lethal intent. In the north-west, the group has been responsible for a number of low-level attacks as well as an attempted mortar attack on a PSNI station. In Belfast it has claimed responsibility for the murder of Kevin Kearney, and conducted a shooting attack against police. However, the actions of this group have been severely hampered by the security forces. Arrests, searches, and seizures of terrorist materiel both north and south of the border have slowed the group’s development and prevented many more attacks. Security force successes have constrained the threat posed by this group.
Oglaigh na hEireann (ONH) was particularly active in the latter half of 2013, demonstrating both its recklessness and its lethal intent with IED attacks against commercial premises in Belfast, and shooting attacks and IEDs against PSNI officers. The group has claimed responsibility for three particularly significant attacks: a vehicle-borne IED which partially functioned close to Victoria square shopping centre; a small IED which functioned in the cathedral quarter on a busy Friday evening; and an under vehicle IED found under a former police officer’s car by the officer and his daughter. Terrorists in Northern Ireland persist in their belief that warning calls somehow absolve them of responsibility for their indiscriminate and dangerous actions. This is not the case and these attacks, with their inadequate and inaccurate warnings, brought us dangerously close to yet another tragic loss of life.
Over the last year, CIRA has continued to splinter into competing factions. Several of these pose a localised threat to security forces, though many are more focused primarily on criminality than terrorism. One particular group in Belfast has caused extensive disruption with a number of hoaxes and pipe bombs. These frustrate the local population, damage local businesses and disrupt lives.
These groups continue to engage in a range of criminal activity including fuel laundering, smuggling, drug dealing, robbery and extortion.
Loyalist paramilitary groups
There remain individuals associated with loyalist paramilitary organisations who continue to be involved in a range of criminal activity, including paramilitary assaults, organised crime such as drug dealing, and intimidation. Continued tensions within and between the two main loyalist paramilitary groups (UVF and UDA) also remain a cause for concern. During 2013 we have witnessed loyalist-related public disorder including protests and security incidents that have taken place outside the offices of democratically elected representatives. There have also been attempts by paramilitaries to gain greater influence and control within loyalist communities.
Overall levels of criminality and violence within loyalist communities have not changed significantly in recent years. But violence and intimidation continue to be a concern and will not be tolerated. Regardless of the label applied to these individuals—terrorist, paramilitary or criminal—and whatever their motivation, every effort will be made to bring these people to justice.
Significant resources are being deployed to tackle violence and criminality in loyalist communities. The PSNI has been actively pursuing illegal activity across all communities with a number of recent successes, particularly in east Belfast. Police officers will continue to build an evidence base against suspects.
Although some individuals who are involved in serious criminality have connections to loyalist paramilitary organisations we continue to assess that the collective leaderships of the UDA and UVF remain committed to the peace process and reform of their organisations. This situation is kept under regular review and is discussed regularly between NIO, PSNI and DoJ.
Paramilitary style shootings and attacks
We have witnessed a number of particularly brutal paramilitary style attacks in the last six months. In October, the so-called “new IRA” claimed to have shot and murdered Kevin Kearney in Belfast. In September, individuals believed to be linked to the east Belfast UVF shot Jemma McGrath, causing serious injury. A number of foreign nationals have also been subjected to a series of racist, paramilitary style attacks.
These crimes and others like them which have caused fear and, in some cases, devastating injuries are shocking acts. Those who perpetrate these crimes will be held to account by the police and the criminal justice system. We are actively supporting the PSNI as it seeks to tackle those involved in criminality within local communities.
PSNI resources and funding
The security situation and ongoing public disorder relating to flags and parades have placed a heavy burden on the PSNI in recent months. Over the summer period and faced with significant and sustained public order challenges, the short-term deployment of police officers from forces in Great Britain under mutual aid arrangements proved very successful. As we move forward in 2014, the PSNI is working closely with its partners in the Department of Justice and the Northern Ireland Policing Board to guarantee longer-term PSNI resource resilience.
This Government continue to offer their full support to the PSNI to ensure that it has the capability it needs to tackle the terrorist threat. The PSNI is now three years into a four-year funding package provided by this Government in 2011. This will ensure that the PSNI is in receipt of £199.5 million for the period up to 2015 to tackle the threat faced from terrorism in Northern Ireland. A further £31 million in security funding will be provided in 2015-16. This money is helping to tackle the threat and ensure that PSNI has the resources it needs to protect the people of Northern Ireland.
Conclusion
This has been a difficult six months from a security perspective, coming as it did after a sustained period of public disorder relating to flags and parades. However, as a result of the concerted and sustained efforts of the security forces, we have also seen some significant arrests, seizures, convictions and disruptions. We continue to contain the threat from terrorism and remain fully committed to driving it down in the future, keeping the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure. There will be no let up in the pressure we apply to terrorists who reject democracy and who offer nothing but violence.
Looking ahead to the rest of 2014, I am committed to working with the security forces and colleagues in the devolved authorities and in the Republic of Ireland as we seek to build on the achievements of 2013. The success of the G8 summit held in Fermanagh in June, followed by Derry/Londonderry’s enthusiastic embrace of its city of culture status and the highly successful hosting of the world police and fire games showcased Northern Ireland at its very best—prepared, resilient, highly capable and determined.
DSA Procurement
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)
I am pleased to announce that, in accordance with the commitment previously given to reduce the costs of learning to drive, new contract arrangements will see a reduction in the cost of the driving theory test from September this year and savings in excess of £100 million over the next nine years.
The Government Procurement Service (GPS), an Executive agency of the Cabinet Office) and the Driving Standards Agency (DSA), an Executive agency of the Department for Transport and now merged with the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) into the new Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency jointly ran a competition to appoint a supplier for a framework contract to provide computer-based testing for the Government. The competition was concluded in early 2013. A call-off contract for the driving theory test—an essential part of arrangements to ensure road safety—has now been awarded under this framework.
The decision to award the framework agreement was subject to a formal challenge which prevented award of the agreement during the course of the challenge. To ensure continued supply of the driving theory test and a reduction in test fees, and in accordance with Government policy to manage disputes by the most effective and appropriate means possible, this dispute was resolved by agreement. This resolution enabled the award of a Government framework agreement to learndirect Ltd on 18 October 2013. Further, DSA and the Driver and Vehicle Agency Northern Ireland agreed that the driving theory test will be provided by learndirect Ltd from September 2016 and that the current provider, Pearson Driving Assessments Ltd, should continue to provide the test until that date.
The result of these contract arrangements has been to secure a very good, value-for-money deal. The reduction in net cost per test, allied to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency’s forecast of increased test volumes as a result of the economic recovery, means that more than £100 million will be saved over the next nine years. In addition, national coverage will be improved with tests becoming available at more locations.
As a consequence of the formal challenge and as a matter of good practice, the permanent secretary of the Department for Transport commissioned an independent review of the handling of the competition by officials in the Driving Standards Agency and other parts of the Department. This has now concluded. A separate report on the lessons that can be learned to inform future procurements will be published shortly. The National Audit Office has been apprised of these matters.
House of Lords
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Scotland: Independence
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Flight
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the event of the result of the Scottish referendum in 2014 being in favour of independence, whether they expect Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies to be eligible to stand for election in the 2015 General Election; and, if so, what will happen on the date of Scottish independence in 2016.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, in the event that a majority of people in Scotland vote for independence in the referendum in September, Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and all its institutions, including the UK Parliament, after a process of negotiation. The timing for any changes would have to be settled in the event of a vote for independence.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I am sure we all hope and expect that the Scottish vote will be in favour of the union but, surely, all eventualities need to be catered for. If Scotland votes for independence, it would be inappropriate for there to be Scottish MPs at Westminster thereafter. What precisely are the arrangements before implementation of Scottish independence, should it be voted for, in 2016?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, there would be a process of negotiation. Obviously, laws passed by this Parliament set out the arrangements for elections and it would be a matter for Parliament to change the arrangements if it so wished. I take the first point of my noble friend’s Question. I think I say for colleagues on all sides of the House that, while we support the integrity of the United Kingdom, we should be making every effort to ensure that the eventuality of a yes vote in the independence referendum simply does not arise.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, one issue that those Members of Parliament might have to address in that eventuality would be the position in relation to the currency. Does the noble and learned Lord welcome the very thoughtful and balanced contribution to the debate on the currency in Scotland made today by the Governor of the Bank of England? Will he join me in urging others who head up our great national institutions, whether in Scotland or throughout the UK, to contribute in a similar fashion to ensure that the complexities of the decisions that are required afterwards are fully understood and that the people in Scotland have all the information they need to make the right decision?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously said, the current arrangements of a full monetary, fiscal and political union bring benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly have noted that the Governor of the Bank of England today has highlighted the principal difficulties of entering into a currency union—losing national sovereignty, the practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out a foreign country. That is why we have consistently said that, in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed so the Scottish Government need a plan B. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that people who, from experience, have an important contribution to make should make it. Indeed, this month, Better Together has published a very good pamphlet which quotes many people showing how untenable the position of the Scottish Government is on the issue of the currency.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, is it not vital that we all spend the time between now and the referendum in September working together and positively campaigning in favour of Scotland staying part of Great Britain and part of the United Kingdom? Speculating on the constitutional detail of what will happen if there is a yes vote in the referendum does not necessarily help in that united campaign.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is vital that our focus is on ensuring that there is a substantial no vote in the referendum in September and that we set out the benefits. Ahead of the debate in your Lordships’ House tomorrow morning, I hope later this afternoon to send out to noble Lords the 20 positive reasons—there are many more—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out earlier this month together with links to the 10 analysis papers published so far in Scotland, which make a very compelling case for the integrity of the United Kingdom and for Scotland remaining part of it.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that even in the event of a no vote in Scotland, which I very much hope for, there are questions to be addressed about our variegated devolution settlements with parts of the United Kingdom? Does he not further agree that thought about that should take place now rather than in a rush after an unexpected and unhoped for yes vote?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Baroness makes an important point. There are important issues about our current constitutional arrangements in all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have shown by our implementation of the Calman report proposals, through the Scotland Act 2012 and the way that we are taking forward the proposals of the Silk commission in relation to Wales that we are alert to these. But I am certain that a no vote in September will not bring an end to these discussions. All parties and even people without parties have an important contribution to make to those discussions.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a yes vote, it is important to remember that the rest of the United Kingdom will be diminished as a result; by one-fifth of our land mass, 5 million of our population and 10% of our GDP. The big picture is that both national and international issues are involved. Therefore, the voices of the Scottish diaspora need to be mobilised, and also the voices of the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish who value an entity that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. It is important that people not only from the diaspora but from other parts of the United Kingdom speak up and say how valued Scotland is as part of a family of nations, which is one of the great success stories of modern history. Scotland is obviously better within the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is also better with Scotland in it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that the answer of the Scottish Nationalists to my noble friend Lord Flight’s question is symptomatic of the fantasy politics that they are putting forward? When he asks what the position of Scottish MPs would be in the House of Commons if they were elected after a vote for independence, their official policy is that we should postpone the date of the general election until 2016.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I did in fact notice that. I am not quite sure what it says about democracy—that people should be denied the chance to elect new Members of Parliament. I also bear in mind that the date that they set for this referendum was after this Parliament had agreed to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which had already set the date for the next general election.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, would there even be a United Kingdom if the vote was a positive one? After all, Northern Ireland is not a kingdom and never has been, and Wales is a Principality. “United Kingdom” refers to the fact that there are the two kingdoms of England and of Scotland. Will we have to change the name of this country in such an eventuality?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All I would say is that, having been part of a party which merged and spent a long time deciding its name, I do not want to start speculating about what might happen if we start breaking up.
Children: Racist and Islamophobic Bullying
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps are being taken to address the reported increase in the number of children who contacted Childline in the last year complaining of racist and Islamophobic bullying.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, all schools must have a behaviour policy with measures to prevent all forms of bullying. Ofsted specifically considers how well schools tackle bullying and discrimination and we have strengthened teachers’ powers to discipline pupils for poor behaviour including bullying. We are also providing £4 million to four anti-bullying organisations to tackle bullying in schools. The new curriculum also offers opportunities to address some of the underlying causes of bullying, including racist bullying, through developing greater understanding and tolerance.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that ChildLine reported a 69% increase in this form of bullying in the past year alone, where students were forced to go to ChildLine rather than go to their school to have this matter addressed? Is he aware that ChildLine further said that it links this specifically to the intemperate language being used around immigration and with Muslim children being called “bombers” and “terrorists”? Will this be specifically taken up and systems put in place so that teachers can deal with it at source rather than children having to go to ChildLine?
Lord Nash
My Lords, every school must have a policy and systems in place and bullying in school at any time is completely unacceptable. The Government are funding Show Racism the Red Card until the end of March to deliver workshops to 10,000 young people in schools. Of course I entirely agree with my noble friend that all of us in public life have a duty to behave responsibly and set positive examples.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I was the first substantive chief executive of ChildLine and while I was there we produced a booklet in which children talked about racism. That was 15 years ago and it was one of our most in-demand booklets. It was especially in demand among schools which used it as a base for discussions among young people. Could Ofsted also look at how peer groups are developed? The other thing that ChildLine found was that it was far more progressive when young people worked together with other young people and talked about these issues, rather than direct teaching.
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is extremely experienced in these matters. Ofsted does look specifically at all types of bullying—cyberbullying and race and religion-related bullying—and in its inspectors’ handbook it says that they will look at the,
“types, rates and patterns of bullying”,
and at the school’s effectiveness in dealing with them. The noble Baroness raises a very good point on peer groups which I will undertake to discuss with Ofsted.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I was a victim of racial abuse so I personally know the distress and trauma it can cause. Some children react very violently when they are racially abused at school and find themselves excluded, which is even more traumatic—they have long-term complications and implications because of it. Can my noble friend tell the House what sort of counselling and support victims of racial abuse receive from their schools?
Lord Nash
I am very sorry to hear of the distress that my noble friend suffered when she was at school. School staff should support all pupils and the nature of that support will depend on the circumstances. It may well be that the staff can support the victim adequately but otherwise the school can involve a specialist charity or organisation which can provide counselling or mentoring, such as Kidscape or Beat Bullying, which my department funds, or Place2Be, a very good counselling charity.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, mentioned the bullying of Muslim children and their being called “bombers”, linked to the media. The Government have a clear strategy—the Prevent strategy. Can the Minister tell me how his department links into the Prevent strategy and what it is doing to support teachers in that respect?
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what guidance and support trainee teachers get in methods of dealing with this sort of abuse and bullying and how that is built on in their continuing development programmes?
Lord Nash
We recently reduced the length of the guidance to schools on bullying from 481 pages, which of course nobody can absorb, to 11. There is a view that we may have gone slightly too far, and we are looking again at whether we should improve certain aspects. Of course, all teachers should receive behaviour management training in ITT. We are also substantially improving the amount of in-school training with the expansion of teaching schools. We have a high number of SMEs and NLEs that are especially focused in this area.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, are the Government aware that the everyday otherisation of children in terms of their creed and colour results in their feeling that they do not belong in this society? It is hardly surprising that they grow up radicalised. Surely we have long since passed the time when you were defined by your creed or colour. What are the Government doing to eradicate from common-day parlance—in Parliament, in the papers and elsewhere—the definition of people by their religion?
Lord Nash
My Lords, our society is now multiethnic. The only way we will succeed in making it truly civilised is if we eliminate all forms of racism and all celebrate the diversity of our country—I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. We expect all schools to teach tolerance and understanding of others in PSHE. We are heavily focused on this. The new national curriculum, which will come into force in September, will offer varied opportunities for pupils to learn about different cultures and religions. The citizenship programme is heavily focused on this, and the history curriculum should also celebrate the contribution of different races and ethnic groups to the history of our country.
Housing: Underoccupancy Charge
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the underoccupancy charge on tenants.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
Both an impact and a quality impact assessment have already been published, although it remains too early to say how people are reacting to this change. We have commissioned a consortium to undertake a two-year monitoring of the effects of the policy. The research will include looking at the effects of the measures on supply issues, the impact on rural areas and the effects on financial circumstances and vulnerable individuals.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. Social security sanctions claimants and cuts their benefits if they break the rules, say on JSA, in order to change their behaviour. But the 660,000 families affected, whose existing housing benefit is being cut by the bedroom tax, cannot change their behaviour because there is nowhere smaller for most of them to go. Two-thirds of them are, in any case, disabled, and may need the extra space. Discretionary housing payments, on which the Minister properly relies, can help only a minority even of disabled people. Does the Minister really think it fair to sanction existing tenants for misbehaviour when they have not misbehaved and when they cannot change their behaviour? Are we not punishing people who have done no wrong but who, as they face eviction, are having wrong done to them? Is that now social security’s definition of social security?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I must make clear that the removal of the spare-room subsidy is not a sanction. The numbers are down from 660,000 to 523,000, which may indicate some behaviour trip-change, as people move to smaller places where they can. The self-declared proportion of disabled people is two-thirds, but when you look at the DLA figures it is 17% of the total. We have raised the amount of DHPs to help with the transition; we have £180 million. The signs at the moment are that there will not be a demand for all of it.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
My Lords, it is bound to be the case that when tenants vacate a flat or a house, some of the properties will remain empty in parts of the United Kingdom. Will he make sure that records are kept of the cost of their upkeep, and also protect them from vandalism?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we are having an intensive review of what is happening. Clearly, there are a large number of people—1.8 million—on the waiting list who would welcome a place to live when it is vacated. We can also look to move some of the people who are living in overcrowded social accommodation; that is a large figure that I discussed with the House yesterday. That will give them some relief.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that discretionary housing payments can cover only a fraction of the losses involved for households as a result of this measure? Research shows that it is of the order of only 6%.
Lord Freud
My Lords, clearly people will respond in different ways, which is one of the things that this policy is intended to bring about. The area with which the noble Baroness is closely associated, Gateshead, spent roughly 69% of DHP in the first half-year and put in an application for further DHP that we were pleased to match with another £130,000. This meant that it could spend roughly the same amount in the second half of the year as in the first. That contrasts with the area that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is very closely associated with. It has spent 58% of its DHP. I have not seen its application for further DHP. There is a bidding fund of £20 million that I would like to get spent. Norwich has until Monday to put in that bid, and I hope that the noble Baroness will use her very considerable energies to make sure that it does.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, with the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research showing that 42% of tenants in some parts of Wales, north-east England and north-west England think it unlikely that they will be able to pay their rent in full, what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the implications of the introduction of the charge? In particular, what contingency plans do they have in case that research proves to be true?
Lord Freud
My Lords, the way in which we are handling the transition is to make sure that there are adequate discretionary housing payments. That is why we raised that figure. We know that people are making adjustments, which will take time and need funding.
I am very pleased to see some of the innovative ways in which local authorities are responding to the challenge. Places such as Warrington and Salford are converting empty office space. They are purchasing and improving long-term empty two-bedroom homes. Derby has a home-release scheme that provides tenants with money to move—£500 for removal costs, for example. Many local authorities have revised their strategies to allow people with arrears to move, which was a block for some people. We are getting the kind of creative response from local authorities for which this policy asked.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the party opposite says that it wishes to control welfare spending but believes that this policy should be scrapped. How does my noble friend think that equivalent savings could be made?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I have noted that the party opposite has said that it will be tougher on welfare than we are. If it is going to take £500 million of savings and put them back, and then risk matching that and paying the equivalent amount in the private sector—adding up to £1 billion a year—I do wonder where it can get that money back out of the welfare system.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, almost a quarter of a million children are in households whose benefit has been reduced because of the bedroom tax—we will be debating this later today. What impact will this have on the Government’s child poverty strategy?
Lord Freud
My Lords, we monitor child poverty very closely. I am pleased to say—and as the noble Baroness knows perfectly well—that we now have lower relative child poverty and poverty than we have seen for a very considerable time. We will go on monitoring that figure.
NHS: Cancer Treatment
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they propose to take to ensure that older people receive equal access to NHS cancer treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
In December, the national clinical director for cancer at NHS England launched a call for action on the treatment for older people. NHS England is now setting up an advisory group to identify where improvements in cancer services for older people can be made. It is also supporting an initiative to ensure that patients are better informed about the options available to them and that they are fully involved in decisions about their treatment.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that welcome Answer, but is he aware of the recently published Macmillan Cancer Support report, which shows that up to as 10,000 cancer patients die needlessly each year because of blatant ageism among doctors? For example, recommendations for chemotherapy diminish by as much as half if you are over 70. Since we are an ageing population and half of all new cancer diagnoses are in people over 70, does the Minister agree that it is of the utmost importance that we ensure that people are treated as individuals regardless of their age? How will he ensure that this view is held also among GPs and hospital consultants?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I completely agree. The noble Baroness is right that a series of reports has shown that the NHS has too often failed to provide the best possible services to older people. We cannot save lives without tackling inequalities. The NHS has a statutory duty to reduce health inequalities and to improve the health of those with the poorest outcomes. A ban on age discrimination in the NHS services was introduced in 2012, meaning that NHS services need to do everything they can to ensure that they do not discriminate against older people. We will hold the NHS to account for that through the mandate and the NHS outcomes framework.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
To what extent are these shocking figures due to lack of funding for cancer services? In that light, what is the Government’s plan for the cancer drugs fund?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord may recall that the Government pledged an additional £750 million to support the cancer strategy. We are doing that, and a range of actions are proceeding there. On the cancer drugs fund, we initially pledged a total of £600 million for the first three years of the fund and we recently pledged another £400 million, making £1 billion in all. I am pleased to say that the cancer drugs fund has so far helped more than 38,000 patients.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, some two weeks ago, the Minister agreed that, when NICE recommends that a particular form of treatment should be given to patients with cancer, rare cancers and other rare diseases, it is incumbent on clinical commissioning groups to see that those drugs are prescribed. Does the Minister agree that clinical criteria must be employed in reaching decisions as to which patients are to receive those drugs and that age alone must never be a barrier to the prescription of drugs in patients with cancers of that type?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I agree. The noble Lord may recall that in December 2012 we worked on a project with Macmillan Cancer Support and Age UK to improve uptake of treatment in older people. That established some key principles for the delivery of age-friendly cancer services. In December 2013, NHS England published an analysis of chemotherapy uptake in older people, and that report reaffirmed those principles and set out some new recommendations around improving the uptake of chemotherapy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, in the previous reply the Minister said he had looked at figures for chemotherapy for older people. Has he looked at the figures for radiotherapy for cancer patients of an age, in particular for intensity-modulated radiotherapy, which is not reaching its target but is considered a great improvement on the previous type of radiotherapy being used for cancer cases?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Government invested £23 million aimed at increasing the capacity of radiotherapy centres in England to deliver intensity-modulated radiotherapy. The latest analysis shows that the median average of IMRT activity in England is at 29%, with the vast majority of centres delivering at 24% or above. That 24% was the magic figure recommended a few years ago by the national radiotherapy implementation group. We continue to monitor progress and local action plans closely.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chair of the all-party cancer group. Does the Minister agree that many older people develop cancer and, therefore, to stop treatment would ensure that many Members of your Lordships’ House would not get treatment? Will he therefore take this really very seriously?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am with the noble Baroness all the way in wishing to see your Lordships live a healthy and long life but, as regards the population generally, I hope that I have made clear the Government’s determination to see that all citizens of this country receive treatment according to their ability to benefit from it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure we are all with the noble Baroness in those sentiments. Can I refer the noble Earl back to the research that my noble friend referred to? The report seems to show that survival rates for cancer patients over the age of 75 are very poor in this country compared with other European countries. The noble Earl has said that he will ensure that action is taken through the mandate to NHS England. Should he not give instructions to clinical commissioning groups to start commissioning cancer services with no age discrimination?
Earl Howe
My Lords, commissioning is an important ingredient in this, but there is a range of actions that we can take and have taken. We know that low levels of awareness and late diagnosis are particular problems for older patients, so it is welcome news that Public Health England is to run a national campaign to raise awareness of breast cancer in women over the age of 70. We are also raising the screening age for breast cancer to include women aged 71 to 73, and the extension of the NHS bowel cancer screening programme to men and women aged 74 is now complete.
Scottish Referendum (Consultation) Bill [HL]
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Works of Art Committee
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Finkelstein be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of the Earl of Shrewsbury, resigned.
Business
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for being a bit presumptuous. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to raise an issue on which I am sure the whole House would like some guidance. Will the government Chief Whip clarify her intentions as to the minimum intervals to be applied to the European Union (Referendum) Bill? It is our assumption on these Benches that, should the Bill complete its Committee stage on Friday 31 January or 7 February, Report will take place on 28 February. Can the Chief Whip confirm that that is her intention?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for his courtesy in giving me advance notice that he was going to raise a question on the matter. He did not actually say what the question would be, but I got the rough idea of what it might refer to and I am genuinely grateful to him. He will be aware that I did not intend to be at Question Time today, not because I am uninterested—I listened to every word, as I always do—but because in the coalition Government I share attendance at Question Time with my coalition partner, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, which is why he was here today. That is why I was not in the House earlier.
The noble Lord asked a question about minimum intervals and, in the same breath, referred to Committee having not yet concluded. He also referred to Committee being scheduled for a later date than this coming Friday. I gently remind the House of a couple of things. First, there is a straightforward answer to all this. Matters concerning the intervals of Bills are not considered until one has secured Committee. This House has not concluded Committee, and matters to do with when Report or other stages might be follow at the end of Committee. That is the normal procedure.
Secondly, the noble Lord refers to different dates. I took the chance to check what I said last week—I thought that my memory was okay, but we like to be sure. Towards the end of Committee on Friday, I referred to the fact that we would continue Committee on the Bill next Friday, 31 January, at 10 am. It is at col. 957 of Hansard. I expressed my expectation that Committee stage would finish on that day, this Friday, and I believe it was a realistic assumption given the rate of progress of business last week. It is still my reasonable assumption that Committee will conclude this Friday, and it is at that stage that matters to do with other stages will be considered. That is the time to do it, not now.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I find that easy to accept, but all I am asking is for the noble Baroness to confirm that she will advise the House to abide by the minimum intervals set out in the Companion. In the end, it is a yes or no question.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, this is a self-regulating House. The Companion has rules that set out the process in different circumstances. It is a matter that is considered at the end of Committee. That is not far away. I urge a little patience. I know that the House may soon become impatient because we have serious matters to address in the Children and Families Bill; I know that many noble Lords have attended the House for that.
I am not in a position to go further than I would in any other case. This is not a time for consideration of how the Bill will proceed after Committee has been concluded. It has not yet been concluded; my expectation is that it will on Friday.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I would not intervene on this were it not for the fact that the government Chief Whip has been kind enough to quote me in relation to the Bill both at Second Reading, when she said that she was following my previous judgment about timings on Second Readings of Bills, and, as I have since discovered, although I did not have the pleasure of coming along to the House on Friday, in Committee, when she again cited previous Labour Chief Whips as the reason for her behaviour and making judgments in the way that she is.
If it ever was the case that she was following our precedent, she has now clearly decided to depart from precedents. That is something that she must make a decision about in the following respect. It is crystal clear that the normal gap between Committee and Report is 14 days. Although this is the normal gap, it would be particularly so in the case of a Bill with considerable constitutional implications. It seems that even if Committee were completed this Friday—when I, sadly, have to report to the House that I am again unable to attend, which is why I make no apologies for making this point now—14 days could not mean that the Committee stage was considered the following Friday, or on the two Fridays after that because they are in the Recess. The earliest I can see that it could be, in keeping with the normal conventions of this House, would be 28 February. If I have made my calculations incorrectly, given that they are precisely the calculations I would have made had I been in the Chief Whip’s position now, perhaps she will be good enough to correct me.
Lord Grocott
I need to say this if the House does not mind. Your Lordships will be able to find that I am frequently prayed in aid. It seems now that I am not being prayed in aid and I wish to establish the distinction. The Chief Whip can possibly do two things. First, can we please have all the precedents in the Library of the House and, secondly, can she confirm now to the House that she is speaking on behalf of the Government, with the full assent of the government Deputy Chief Whip?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my answer remains straightforward because I like to be a straightforward kind of person. I am giving the answer that any government Chief Whip would give at this stage. Matters of further stages are not considered until the end of Committee, which should conclude on Friday. I believe that that is a reasonable expectation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will give an undertaking that it is his expectation as well. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, refers to my praying him in aid. I do so with genuine respect, because I respect him as a government Chief Whip. I particularly recall that when he was government Chief Whip, he frequently called in the other Chief Whips, the Convenor and Members of the Cross Benches, to ensure that his guidance that at least three groups an hour should be considered in Committee was maintained.
I give a straightforward answer. Nothing further should be said by a government Chief Whip at this stage because it would be pre-empting any decision that may be made and making assumptions about Friday that it would be wrong to make. My expectation is that Committee will finish and I think the House has wearied of going around the same route. Again, there is only one answer, to which I will adhere because it is the right answer.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, I ask the noble Baroness what I hope is a fairly simple question. The Companion is quite clear in what it says. If it is for the convenience of the House, the intervals that are set out in the Companion can clearly be varied. One accepts that. It happens quite often with government Bills. You get a Motion down on the Order Paper to say that the intervals should be compressed.
Does the noble Baroness accept that in relation to this Bill, in order for the intervals to be compressed, there will have to be a Motion of this House, which will have to be passed?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, matters of procedure with regard to usual intervals are a matter to be discussed once one completes Committee. The Companion is absolutely clear. I can certainly see that the Clerk of the Parliaments is able to give firm advice, which may not be that which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, wishes to hear. I have given the only answer any government Chief Whip should and can give at this time. That is where it rests.
Water Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Water Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That it be an instruction to the Committee that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 2 to 4, Schedules 3 and 4, Clause 5, Schedule 5, Clauses 6 to 37, Schedule 6, Clauses 38 to 44, Schedule 7, Clauses 45 to 48, Schedule 8, Clauses 49 to 74, Schedule 9, Clause 75, Schedule 10, Clauses 76 and 77, Schedule 11, Clauses 78 to 80, Schedule 12, Clause 81.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 16 December 2013 be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 28 January.
Children and Families Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:24 - Division on Amendment 57BB - Ayes: 222 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 57BB agreed.
19:18 - Division on Amendment 57BC - Ayes: 154 / Noes: 185 - Amendment 57BC disagreed.
“Regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (6) or (8) if the Secretary of State considers that the regulations may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, the health or welfare of people under the age of 18.
(2) Subsection (1) does not prevent the Secretary of State, in making regulations under subsection (6) or (8), from considering whether the regulations may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, the health or welfare of people aged 18 or over.
(3) The Secretary of State may treat regulations under subsection (6) or (8) as capable of contributing to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, the health or welfare of people under the age of 18 if the Secretary of State considers that—
(a) at least some of the provisions of the regulations are capable of having that effect, or(b) the regulations are capable of having that effect when taken together with other regulations that were previously made under subsection (6) or (8) and are in force.(4) Regulations under subsection (6) or (8) are to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) as capable of contributing to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, people’s health or welfare if (for example) they may contribute to any of the following—
(a) discouraging people from starting to use tobacco products;(b) encouraging people to give up using tobacco products;(c) helping people who have given up, or are trying to give up, using tobacco products not to start using them again;(d) reducing the appeal or attractiveness of tobacco products;(e) reducing the potential for elements of the packaging of tobacco products other than health warnings to detract from the effectiveness of those warnings;(f) reducing opportunities for the packaging of tobacco products to mislead consumers about the effects of using them;(g) reducing opportunities for the packaging of tobacco products to create false perceptions about the nature of such products;(h) having an effect on attitudes, beliefs, intentions and behaviours relating to the reduction in use of tobacco products.(5) Regulations under subsection (6) or (8) are to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) as capable of contributing to reducing the risk of harm to, or promoting, the health or welfare of people under the age of 18 if—
(a) they may contribute to reducing activities by such people which risk harming their health or welfare after they reach the age of 18, or(b) they may benefit such people by reducing the use of tobacco products among people aged 18 or over.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the retail packaging of tobacco products.
(7) Regulations under subsection (6) may in particular impose prohibitions, requirements or limitations relating to—
(a) the markings on the retail packaging of tobacco products (including the use of branding, trademarks or logos);(b) the appearance of such packaging;(c) the materials used for such packaging;(d) the texture of such packaging;(e) the size of such packaging;(f) the shape of such packaging;(g) the means by which such packaging is opened;(h) any other features of the retail packaging of tobacco products which could be used to distinguish between different brands of tobacco product;(i) the number of individual tobacco products contained in an individual packet;(j) the quantity of a tobacco product contained in an individual packet.(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision imposing prohibitions, requirements or limitations relating to—
(a) the markings on tobacco products (including the use of branding, trademarks or logos);(b) the appearance of such products;(c) the size of such products;(d) the shape of such products;(e) the flavour of such products;(f) any other features of tobacco products which could be used to distinguish between different brands of tobacco product.(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) create offences which may be committed by persons who produce or supply tobacco products the retail packaging of which breaches prohibitions, requirements or limitations imposed by regulations under subsection (6);(b) create offences which may be committed by persons who produce or supply tobacco products which breach prohibitions, requirements or limitations imposed by regulations under subsection (8);(c) provide for exceptions and defences to such offences;(d) make provision about the liability of others to be convicted of such offences if committed by a body corporate or a Scottish partnership.(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that regulations under subsection (6) or (8) are to be treated for the purposes specified in regulations under this subsection as safety regulations within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987.
(11) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision amending, repealing, revoking or otherwise modifying any provision made by or under an enactment (whenever passed or made) in connection with provision made by regulations under any of subsections (6), (8), (9) or (10).
(12) The Secretary of State must—
(a) obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers before making regulations under any of subsections (6), (8), (9) or (10) containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament) be within the legislative competence of that Parliament;(b) obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers before making regulations under any of those subsections containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the National Assembly for Wales) be within the legislative competence of that Assembly;(c) obtain the consent of the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland before making regulations under any of those subsections containing provision which would (if contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly) be within the legislative competence of that Assembly. (13) For the purposes of this section a person produces a tobacco product if, in the course of a business and with a view to the product being supplied for consumption in the United Kingdom or through the travel retail sector, the person—
(a) manufactures the product,(b) puts a name, trademark or other distinguishing mark on it by which the person is held out to be its manufacturer or originator, or(c) imports it into the United Kingdom.(14) For the purposes of this section a person supplies a tobacco product if in the course of a business the person—
(a) supplies the product,(b) offers or agrees to supply it, or(c) exposes or possesses it for supply.(15) In this section—
“enactment” includes—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,(b) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales, or(c) Northern Ireland legislation;“external packaging”, “internal packaging” and “wrapper” have the meanings given by regulations under subsection (6);
“packaging”, in relation to a tobacco product, means—
(a) the external packaging of that product,(b) any internal packaging of that product,(c) any wrapper of that product, or(d) any other material attached to or included with that product or anything within paragraphs (a) to (c);“retail packaging”, in relation to a tobacco product, means the packaging in which it is, or is intended to be, presented for retail sale;
“retail sale” means sale otherwise than to a person who is acting in the course of a business which is part of the tobacco trade;
“tobacco product” means a product consisting wholly or partly of tobacco and intended to be smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed;
“travel retail sector” means retail outlets in the United Kingdom at which tobacco products may be purchased only by people travelling on journeys to destinations outside the United Kingdom.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to have tabled government amendments that introduce regulation-making powers to enable the Government to bring in standardised tobacco packaging, if such a decision is made.
I would like to acknowledge the support and positive responses that we have had to the Government’s action on tobacco and its packaging. We have seen support in both your Lordships’ House and in the other place. I have also had discussions with a number of noble Lords. I was pleased as well to see the welcoming comments from the public health community. I wrote to all noble Lords on 17 December explaining the key elements of this new clause. I will summarise the main provisions.
Amendment 57B will provide the Secretary of State for Health with the power to make regulations to standardise packaging of tobacco products, should such a decision be taken by the Government. The regulation-making powers would enable Ministers to regulate internal and external packaging and any other associated materials included with a tobacco product. This would include, for example, not just the outside and the inside of a cigarette pack but also the cellophane or other outer wrapper of a pack.
Ministers may also specify requirements for the products themselves, for example to regulate the appearance of, or branding on, individual cigarettes. The powers will extend to other forms of tobacco, such as hand-rolling tobacco. If standardised packaging is brought into place, we will think carefully about the type of tobacco to which the requirements should apply.
The amendment is clear that before deciding whether to introduce regulations, Ministers must consider that regulations may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to those under 18 or promote their health or welfare. This includes harms that do not appear until later in life because, as we know, the harm to the health of a smoker may not be immediate but may manifest after several years of addiction. Ministers may also consider whether regulations may contribute to reducing the risk of harm to those aged 18 or over, so we could also take into account whether standardised tobacco packaging might help adults who want to quit.
The amendment sets out the elements of the tobacco packaging that could be regulated—for example, the use of colour, branding or logos, the materials used and the texture, size and shape of the packaging. It also sets out the aspects of the tobacco product itself that could be regulated. The Government would not necessarily use all these powers, and if we proceed we will need to decide which aspects to include in any regulations. However, it is prudent to take a comprehensive approach now so that we are prepared for possible future developments and do not inadvertently create loopholes that could be exploited.
The requirements would apply only to the retail packaging of tobacco products, which means the packaging that will or is intended to be used when the product is sold to the public. Manufacturers, distributors and retailers would still be able to use branding such as logos and colours on packaging, provided that they were used only within the tobacco trade—for example, on boxes used for stock management in a warehouse that were not seen by the public.
These provisions will apply on a UK-wide basis, provided that legislative consent Motions are passed by the Parliament or Assemblies of the devolved Administrations. The Governments in Wales and Scotland have already obtained the necessary Motions, and Ministers in Northern Ireland are progressing this.
The Government have also tabled two technical amendments, one making the regulations subject to affirmative resolution procedures and the other extending the provisions to the whole of the United Kingdom. If regulations are made, they will be enforced by local authority trading standards as safety regulations under the Consumer Protection Act. In reviewing the detail of the amendment, we have identified a small gap that we wish to address. As it is currently drafted, Ministers would not be able to take enforcement action if none was taken by a local authority. As a precaution, and in line with other tobacco control legislation, we think it sensible for Ministers to be able to do this and so intend to make a technical amendment to the new clause at Third Reading to allow for this.
I wrote to noble Lords on 27 January about the Government’s intention to table amendments at Third Reading on the proxy purchasing of tobacco and the sale of nicotine products, primarily e-cigarettes, to children. I hope that both measures will be welcomed by your Lordships. I recognise that these amendments come at a late stage in the Bill’s passage, and I apologise for this. I want to be able to give noble Lords as much information as possible, so have invited all Peers to a meeting to discuss the amendments on 3 February and would be happy to meet on an individual basis as well, so that there is time to consider them before the debate at Third Reading.
I shall summarise these amendments. We intend to create a new offence of the proxy purchase of tobacco, which is buying tobacco on behalf of someone underage. Nicotine is highly addictive and it is wrong in principle for adults to be buying cigarettes on behalf of children. We need to close common routes of supply to children. We know that proxy purchasing is a common problem and we need to take clear action to tackle it. There was considerable support for tackling proxy purchasing when it was debated in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill. We have also listened carefully to the views of retailers and their representative organisations on this issue.
In addition, we have decided to table an amendment to enable us to make regulations to prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to people aged under 18. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine, a highly addictive substance, albeit in a safer way than smoked tobacco. We know that some young people in England are using these products and there is nothing stopping their sale to people under 18. Some in the public health community are very concerned that e-cigarettes could act as a gateway into smoking tobacco, and that their use and promotion can undermine our efforts to reshape the social norms around tobacco use. The revised European tobacco products directive, which achieved political agreement in December last year, covers e-cigarettes but does not include an age of sale restriction. We therefore want to do this domestically through the Bill.
The amendments will apply to England but we are in discussions with the Welsh Government regarding the possibility of extending the provisions to Wales, subject to the necessary legislative consent Motion being secured.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to my Amendments 61 and 57BB. I very much welcome Her Majesty’s Government’s change of heart as far as standardised packaging is concerned, and I certainly welcome the appointment of Sir Cyril Chantler to review the evidence. Sir Cyril is known to many of your Lordships and has made a significant contribution to the NHS. We can have complete confidence in his work.
My two amendments are designed to press the noble Earl on the comments he made in his final remarks and to encourage him to give the House an absolute assurance that should Sir Cyril Chantler conclude that the evidence is clear that standardised packaging is effective in reducing the risk of harm to children, the Government will speedily move to lay the regulations specified in his Amendment 57B. The noble Earl will know that at the moment line 3 of his amendment merely says,
“The Secretary of State may make regulations”.
I would have preferred to see the word “must”. To an extent, the noble Earl has already explained why it is to be “may”, but are there any circumstances where, on the assumption that Sir Cyril has concluded positively, the Government would not proceed to legislate?
Amendment 57BB concerns the proposal that it be an offence for any person who drives a vehicle to fail to prevent smoking in the vehicle where a child or children are present. I do this on the basis that the past 15 years have seen an impressive reduction in the amount of smoking in this country. Indeed, since the previous Government’s 1998 Smoking Kills action plan, smoking rates among children, who are, of course, the focus of this Bill, have fallen by more than half following a period of little progress lasting 20 years. I have little doubt that the ban on advertising was pivotal, but the fall was also due to a series of other concerned measures which included an increase in the age of sale, picture warnings on packs and an above-inflation increase in tobacco duty to reduce affordability.
I believe that we should continue the momentum and protect future generations from the dangers of smoking. That is why I welcome the Government’s agreement to legislate on standardised packages and the proposals that the Minister has outlined today in relation to proxy purchasing and the restriction of the sale of e-cigarettes to under 18 year-olds. However, the Government could do more by accepting my amendments and support the principle of a ban on the use of cigarettes when children are present in cars.
Children’s lungs are smaller and they have faster breathing rates, which makes them particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke, especially within the close confines of a car. Members of the public are protected by smoke-free legislation when in public transport and work vehicles. However, large numbers of children remain exposed to high concentrations of second-hand smoke when confined in family cars. Indeed, around one child in five reports being regularly exposed to second-hand smoke in cars, with catastrophic health consequences. Figures released by the British Lung Foundation show that around 185,000 children between the ages of 11 and 15 in England are exposed to potentially toxic concentrations of second-hand smoke in their family car every day or on most days.
We know that children exposed to second-hand smoke have a raised risk of lower respiratory infections, wheeze, asthma, middle ear infections and meningitis. Every year, exposure to second-hand smoke leads to an estimated 165,000 additional cases of these conditions among children. Many of those cases are serious, leading to an estimated 8,500 hospital admissions.
I was very surprised by research identified by the British Lung Foundation, which shows that a single cigarette smoked in a moving car with the window half open exposes a child in the centre of the back seat to around two-thirds as much second-hand smoke as in an average smoke-filled pub of days gone by. Levels increase to 11 times those of a smoky pub when the cigarette is smoked in a stationary car with the windows closed.
Some noble Lords will argue—as I heard the FOREST spokesman arguing this morning—that a car is a private space and that we should not legislate for what happens in such a space. However, there are more important principles than that, one of which is the need for child protection. Unlike most adults, children lack the freedom to decide when and how to travel, and they lack the authority most adults have to ask people not to smoke in their company. In those circumstances it is right for Parliament to step in to protect children.
I know that the Government argue that the most effective way to reduce smoking in cars carrying children is not through legislation. In his letter to us the noble Earl talked of two successful campaigns aimed at encouraging people to change their behaviour, and said that the evaluations are encouraging. From what I see—and they do not appear to be very robust evaluations—I am not aware that the scientific evidence of behavioural change has been published. Can he give an assurance that the evaluations spanned several months and not just immediately after the campaign? Can he also confirm that they took into account what was reported by children and not just adults? There is sometimes a discrepancy between what adults say they do and their behaviour as reported by children. Can he also confirm that the research includes actual measurement of behavioural change? I do not believe that marketing measures such as website visits effectively demonstrate behaviour change. Can the noble Earl also say why, if the Government are so keen on evaluation, Ministers forced NICE to abandon a project to give public health guidance for commissioners and providers on the development and implementation of policies on smoke-free homes, private cars and other vehicles?
The noble Earl will argue that this is best done through education. I understand that argument and I certainly accept that education programmes can achieve much. However, my contention is that we are now close to—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
I have listened to the noble Lord very carefully and I cannot understand—perhaps he can explain it to me—why on earth he has joined the question of plain packaging with smoking in cars. They are two completely different issues. Is it expected that those of us who are concerned with both amendments now have to speak in one debate rather than two, on two particularly difficult and important matters?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, a number of amendments have been grouped together. Some deal with standardised packaging, others with the issue of smoking in cars. My answer to the noble Lord is that we will deal with both issues in one debate. The House always has to trade off having separate debates on individual amendments or pulling them together. I, for one, think it is better that we have a wider debate; but of course the noble Lord is entitled to speak on both issues. I hope that he will do so because he always has interesting insights—although I do not always agree with him on this particular one.
In finishing, I want to come back—and anticipating the noble Earl’s response—to the issues around awareness campaigns. As I said, of course they can achieve much, but sometimes legislation also needs to be brought into the picture.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble Lord said earlier in his speech that the principle of not legislating into private space and private family activity was one that should be breached on certain occasions. Could he explain why he is stopping at cars and not at living rooms in small flats, for example?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, they are two different issues. I certainly do not propose that we legislate in relation to people’s homes. The differences lie, first, in the scale of the health issue. As I have already indicated, the amount of second-hand smoke that a young person is likely to inhale in a car generally will be very much higher than in a person’s home. Secondly, by and large there are usually rooms in a person’s home that are not used for smoking, so there is more of an element of choice. I accept that this is a continuum, but I assure the noble Lord that it is not my intention to propose a ban on smoking in people’s homes. There are specific circumstances that make the banning of smoking in cars while children are present a particular health issue.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Surely, my noble friend Lord Forsyth highlighted a very important point. He talked about small flats; there are small flats where there may be several children and only one living room. What is the logic of the noble Lord’s argument in that case? Personally, I do not think we should invade private space; that is my position and I may seek to defend it later. There is no logical difference between a single child in a car and four children in the living room of a small flat.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I do not accept that. Clearly, in relation to a child travelling in a car we are going to debate where the balance lies: whether a car should be regarded as a private entity in which the state ought not to intervene, or whether noble Lords consider that a child’s health becomes the paramount concern.
A private car is rather different from a home; the health damage to a young person inhaling smoke in a car generally will be much greater than in a person’s home. I do not want to repeat the point that I have already made to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, although I may be tempting him to intervene again. However, within a home there are likely to be opportunities for young people to avoid the smoke-filled parts of that home.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not want to prolong the noble Lord’s speech; I am not making a debating point, but am genuinely interested in his logic. A child in a car—which I accept is a very confined space—will probably be in a car for a short journey. If children are in a living room, they are there all evening. Perhaps I should declare an interest; my late mother used to smoke 60 cigarettes a day. That is one of the reasons why I would never touch a cigarette. Surely, if a child is in a small living room in which continuous smoking is going on, that seems to me, without any evidence, to be as great a health hazard as being in a car. I am not advocating invading private space, but where is the evidence that supports what the noble Lord is saying—namely, that it is a much worse hazard being in a car, probably on a short journey, than being in a living room where smoking goes on all day?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I do not have evidence on the length of the average car journey, though clearly short and long distances may be travelled during which smoking may take place. I suspect that we can argue that until the cows come home. However, I come back to the core argument that in a confined space, such as a car, a child is likely to be more damaged through inhaling second-hand smoke than they are in a person’s home. That is the reason for making a distinction between legislation affecting an individual vehicle and legislation affecting a person’s home.
Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)
I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. Does “private vehicle” in the amendment include a motor boat? One drives a motor boat.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
No, my Lords, I do not think that that is covered in my amendment—although, of course, it is open to the noble and learned Lord to propose an amendment to increase the scope of the measure. I would give such an amendment all due consideration.
I refer noble Lords to an inquiry into smoking in private vehicles by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, carried out in 2011, which concluded that the evidence from smoke-free public places was that legislation would be necessary to reduce exposure to cigarette smoke in cars. That is the basic case I am making. At this stage, I am asking noble Lords to support the principle of a ban. If my amendment were accepted, I would be very happy to work on a cross-party basis to consult on the type of offence that should be put in place. I have not gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, and his colleagues in terms of specifying the offence because I think that needs further consideration and discussion.
We would not be alone in legislating to protect children from the damage of smoking in cars. Seven other countries already do so, including four US states, 10 of the 13 Canadian provinces and all but one jurisdiction in Australia. As far as the public are concerned, a YouGov poll in 2011 found that 78% of adults in Great Britain agree that smoking should be banned in cars carrying children younger than 18 years of age. Just as significantly, perhaps, a British Lung Foundation survey in 2011 found that 86% of children want action to be taken to protect them from cigarette smoke in cars. I think that we should listen to the voice of children in this respect. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment that I shall propose later.
In concluding, I should have pointed out to noble Lords my health interests in the register, including being chairman of a foundation trust, a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections and president of GS1.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is compelling but fails to acknowledge the impact of second-hand smoke on children in confined spaces or in the home, as we heard in an earlier debate. For this to happen, the public, particularly parents, have to be educated about the harm that second-hand smoke can do to young children’s lungs. The noble Lord identified some of those problems. That is why I believe that education and behavioural change are important.
As a doctor, I recognise the damage that second-hand smoke can cause, and in particular the long-lasting effect it can have on the lungs of young children. Just this Sunday, I was present at the birth of my first grandson out of six grandchildren.
Lord Ribeiro
I greeted that event with jubilation. I would not want that grandson to go through life having his young lungs damaged by cigarette smoke. I am concerned about that. Cigarette smoke contains a cocktail of carcinogens: arsenic, cadmium, formaldehyde, benzene and in particular the fine particulate matter that comes out of cigarettes when they are smoked. This can cause long-term damage and illnesses.
My Amendment 62, which mimics the Private Member’s Bill that I took through this House in 2012, serves to make parents and the public aware of the risks and to provide educational programmes to rehabilitate them through smoke-free driving awareness courses. I believe strongly in education and behavioural change, rather than the imposition of punitive measures. It is about providing incentives to change behaviour, not dissimilar from the police driving course which noble Lords may have been offered if they have ever been unfortunate enough to have been caught speeding. There may be some in this Chamber who can endorse the benefits of that.
In that sense, my amendment is exploratory, seeking to obtain answers from the Government on two specific issues. The first is education to change behaviour, as I explained. Here, I applaud the Government for their successful advertising campaign launched last year, with its graphic films of children assaulted by smoke in the back of cars while parents in the front are oblivious to the damage being done behind them, probably because the driver has a window open and therefore assumes that all the smoke is going outside. I should like assurances from my noble friend that the Government will repeat that successful campaign and undertake an extensive evaluation of its effects. We must know that behavioural change is happening.
I am sure that the Government have taken note of the Welsh Government’s Fresh Start Wales campaign. I made reference to this at Second Reading and asked whether the Government would again consider mirroring what the Welsh Government were doing. That Government are due to report in the spring on the result of their campaign, following which they reserve the right to introduce legislation if no improvement in behaviour is apparent.
My second question to the Government relates to a national consultation, which should involve the public, the profession and the retailers, to decide whether legislation or non-legislative measures are required to protect children from smoking in confined spaces. I am pleased that my noble friend has asked Sir Cyril Chantler to undertake an independent review of the public health evidence on standardised tobacco packaging and its effects on public health. Might he perhaps also consider asking Sir Cyril, at the conclusion of this review in March, to undertake a similar review of the effects of second-hand smoke on children travelling in cars? There is plenty of evidence out there but what is now needed is the clinical evidence that shows that smoke causes long-term damage. We know that the long-term sequelae from smoking in adults are quite severe. If we can demonstrate that they start at a very early age, that will be very good evidence for taking action now rather than later.
My amendment provides the Government with measures to change behaviour. They may have started with good intentions—and I am sure that they have. Standardised tobacco packaging will reduce the risk of smoking and its damaging effects on children. I hope that the Government will take the view that legislation, although difficult, may need to be considered. However, for legislation to work, I understand that it must be proportionate and enforceable. In this respect, my amendment is probably defective, as it will be difficult to police and to enforce, much in the same way, I suppose, as is the case with the mobile phone offence, which is legislated for but is difficult to police.
I hope that my noble friend will provide me with some of the concessions that I seek. I do not think that they are small ones but they will help to ensure that over the next year, and certainly over the next three months when we hear the results of the Welsh review and Sir Cyril Chantler’s review—and it is to be hoped that he will extend that further—we will have more information on which to make a decision as to whether we should introduce legislation or non-legislative measures.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 60 and 62. I will first address Amendment 60 on standardised packaging and move on to the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, has spoken so eloquently. I hope to avoid covering the ground that has already been covered. In terms of standardised packaging, those of us who contributed in Committee to a very powerful and widely supported debate across the House are grateful to the Government for having done exactly what they said they would; namely, take the proposal away and look at it. They have returned with an elegant amendment. Before finally legislating, it seems wise to have an independent review by Sir Cyril Chantler.
This is definitely a public health and a child protection measure. I should like to address that briefly but not repeat what was said previously. The Minister has already said how many children start smoking before the age of 18. That figure is particularly high in looked-after children, where about one-third report that they are current smokers. However, when looking at children in residential care, the figure rises to more than two-thirds. There is a real problem with very vulnerable children.
In 1999, the tobacco industry’s magazine, World Tobacco, said that,
“if your brand can no longer shout from billboards … it can at least court smokers from wherever it is placed by those already wedded to it”.
The problem is that we know that tobacco is a highly addictive substance, and that the products of tobacco damage health and do not have any positive benefit. Recently, a study published in the European Journal of Public Health has shown that,
“the removal of brand imagery from tobacco packaging reduces the appeal of tobacco products, including perceptions of brand attractiveness and smooth taste and perceptions of lower tar or lower health risk”.
Those perceptions are an illusion. The study was in the UK, and I am sure that it will be considered in the evidence review and that Sir Cyril will be an independent reviewer in every sense.
It is worrying that it has taken us so long to get to this point. Like other noble Lords who have put their name to this amendment, I sincerely believe that the day will come when we will see standardised packaging. That day is not far off, because research study after research study reports are reinforcing that standardised packaging is making cigarette packs less attractive to young people.
I have had discussions with Her Majesty’s Customs as regards illicit trade. It pointed out that it is not that difficult to detect counterfeit standardised packaging, just as it is not difficult to detect other counterfeit packaging. Indeed, the cover marks, number codes and security marks are the clue, rather than the bald, external appearance of the pack. It also is well aware that tobacco firms have been producing and exporting cigarettes far in excess of any known demand in a stated target market abroad, knowing that this excess production will be smuggled back into the UK. The tobacco companies appear to have been complicit with what has been termed the illicit trade. It seems logical that this move and the government amendment are because of child protection issues and the importance of preventing children from starting to smoke.
On tobacco and smoking in cars, the British Lung Foundation study, which was addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, included another set of figures which I hope the House will consider. One has to remember that the children responding in the study were of an age at which they could answer competently. When asked about being a passenger in a car, 31% said that they had asked someone to stop smoking but 34% said that they had not dared to ask because they were too frightened or too embarrassed. The child in the back seat, belted in, is effectively imprisoned in the vehicle for their own safety while travelling. They are stuck there. They have no control over what the adults do, and it is worth remembering that they do not feel able to do anything about it either. As was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, if they are in a house, they can move to another room or another area and the volume of space is much greater than in a car.
Lord Cormack
Would this amendment apply to open-topped cars such as sports cars where children would presumably not be at risk?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
It is worth pointing out that the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, has already indicated that he will not press his amendment, which is quite specific, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, simply addresses the ability to bring forward regulation but does not specify what those regulations should be. I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that his question is an important one for us to have at a later stage, in the event that the House decides to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
My last point relates to my home country of Wales, where I am delighted that the problem of tobacco consumption has been taken seriously. The results of the Welsh campaign will be published fairly soon. But it is with regret that I have to note that at the end of the first year of the campaign, 22% of smokers still pointed out that smoking was allowed in their car at any time. There is a perception that if it is allowed it is okay. I am concerned over the results that will come forward from the education campaign, although I fully support the campaign itself.
I remind the House that we had a parallel debate over seat belts in cars. Yet the seat-belt wearing rate increased in the UK from 25% before legislation to 91% after legislation. That was introduced alongside awareness campaigns. We cannot have legislation without a large education and awareness-raising campaign. The efficacy relates to the education and awareness-raising campaign rather than to any kind of punitive measures that go alongside it.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
I added my name to Amendments 57BB, 60 and 62 and will speak briefly to those, but I start by congratulating the noble Earl on bringing forward his Amendment 57B and for overseeing a significant change in government policy on the subject of standard packaging. Like many of your Lordships, I was heartened when I heard the then Public Health Minister, Anna Soubry, around a year ago saying that the Government were minded to go down the standard packs route and then bitterly disappointed last summer when the plans were suddenly dropped. Various conspiracy theories were propounded at the time and I will not go into those now, but it looked as if the issue was dead, at least for the foreseeable future.
At that point, it seemed sensible to look at whether there was any possibility of adding a standard packaging amendment to another Bill, which might not immediately present itself as the most appropriate, in order to be able to give the House the opportunity to debate the issue and come to a view on it. With the help of staff in the Public Bill Office—about whom I cannot speak highly enough, as their help was invaluable in framing our original amendment in Committee and the subsequent amendment that we tabled for today—we were able to bring the issue to the Committee and approach the issue in an entirely cross-party and non-party way. The amendment that we put together was signed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Tyler, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and myself.
Amendment 60 is an improved version of what we had in Committee, but the Government’s amendment today is a great improvement on that as well. I congratulate them on picking up a number of the points that were defective in ours and coming forward with one that, I think, is very effective. Tobacco control should not be a party-political matter; it should be the common concern of everyone who cares about the health and the well-being of the public. As we have heard from the Minister, smoking-related disease still kills more than 100,000 people across the UK and is by far the most common form of preventable death—it accounts for more premature deaths than the next six most common causes put together.
As most smokers start as teenagers, the teenage market is the one which the tobacco companies are anxious to promote, which it is the responsibility of all of us to try to prevent. Two-thirds of existing smokers report that they started before their 18th birthday, and around two in five before they were 16. The younger the age at which they start, the greater the harm is likely to be, because the early uptake of the habit is associated with subsequent heavier smoking—of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, experienced with his mother and her 60-a-day habit—high levels of dependency, a lower chance of quitting and a higher chance of death from smoking-related disease.
For the tobacco industry to keep its market, it is necessary for it to recruit new smokers every year. That is because older smokers die or quit—or indeed lose their lives prematurely as a result of their habit. Since most smokers start when they are young, it follows that, for the industry, young people are the most important target group of potential new consumers.
We know what the tobacco industry would do in this country to promote its products if the law and the authorities allowed. Indeed, we probably know more about the commercial strategies of the tobacco industry than about any other major industry in the world, in large part because so many previously confidential documents were made public as a result of the US master settlement agreement with the industry in 1998.
Given the restrictive legislation around marketing and advertising tobacco in the UK, the industry is left with few options to promote its products. Of these, the most important is now packaging. Packs can be used to market and advertise, to create brand identities and to help present an image of smoking that may indeed seem “cool” to a curious teenager. There are many diversionary arguments advanced by the tobacco industry and the front groups it funds so lavishly about why we should not proceed with standardised packaging. So we hear tobacco industry claims that the UK is being flooded with illicit tobacco and that standard packs will make the problem worse. But the level of illicit trade has fallen sharply since it peaked back in 2000, and the security features on existing packs will also be present on standard ones. Both our amendment and the Government’s would allow the Secretary of State to specify packaging requirements that would enhance and not reduce product security, and make smuggling and counterfeiting more difficult.
However, the tobacco industry’s real, core argument is quite simple. It is advancing the proposition that its claimed so-called “intellectual property rights” trump the requirements of public health—or to put it more sharply, that its right to design products designed to get children addicted is more important than the children’s right to be protected from that addiction and the health damage that it causes. I believe that the overwhelming majority of your Lordships, and indeed Members of the other place, reject the tobacco industry’s arguments and want to make cigarettes as unattractive to children and young people as possible. So, as I said at the beginning, I warmly welcome the Government’s amendment. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward and on his announcement regarding proxy purchasing of tobacco products by adults for young people, and the regulation of e-cigarettes, about which we shall hear more at Third Reading.
I am not going to speak about smoking in cars because the speeches on that subject by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro—with whom I agree, and whom I congratulate on his perseverance in taking a Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House on this subject—and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, have covered the main points. However, I strongly commend the points that my noble friend Lord Hunt made about the desirability of moving towards a smoke-free atmosphere in cars where children are trapped and subject to appalling levels of second-hand smoke.
I am very happy indeed to support the government amendment. We shall not be pressing our own amendment on standard packaging, but I shall be supporting my noble friend.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendments 60 and 62. I will speak briefly to them and try not to repeat some of the arguments we have already heard. I will also say how much I welcome government Amendment 57B. In Grand Committee, the strength of feeling across your Lordships’ House on the issue of standardised packaging of cigarettes was crystal clear, and the Government are to be strongly applauded for responding with their own amendment, which is very well founded and very persuasive. I, too, look forward to Third Reading, when the Government will introduce additional measures around proxy purchasing and e-cigarettes.
At the beginning of these debates, some noble Lords raised questions about the logic of including an amendment on the packaging of cigarettes in a Bill whose stated remit is children and families. To my mind, the relevance is unequivocal—this is the very nub of the issue, which is why we are discussing it today. Preventing the uptake of smoking among the young is primarily an issue of child protection. As we have already heard today, each year around 200,000 under-16s take up smoking. For some, it is the start of a lifetime of addiction which will result in debilitating health conditions and, for some in turn, premature mortality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, many of those children will come from particularly deprived backgrounds. We have already heard about children in care and I would draw your Lordships’ attention to teenage mothers, who, according to an ONS survey, are six times more likely than the average mother to smoke throughout their pregnancy, to the detriment of both their own and their baby’s health.
Standardised packaging, bearing clear anti-smoking messages, is the first key step to reducing the attractiveness of this lethal habit to children and young people. As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, we should be absolutely clear that tobacco packaging and branding is not innocuous. It is undoubtedly, at the moment, targeted at the young—the industry documents released in the USA about this were very telling indeed, although I do not intend to repeat the details of that. Equally critically, the weight of evidence is mounting that standardised packaging does work to reduce the incidence of smoking. I was very persuaded by the Department of Health’s systematic literature review, which found that, compared to current cigarette packs, standardised packs are less attractive to young people, improve the effectiveness of health warnings and reduce the mistaken belief that some brands are safer than others. I eagerly look forward to the outcome of the review by Sir Cyril Chantler, who will look at all of this in the round. I will be very surprised if he does not come out supporting the various literature reviews that we have already seen.
Very recently, thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I had the privilege of meeting with Nicola Roxon, the former Australian Minister for Health who was instrumental in the implementation of standardised packaging there. I was very impressed as she explained to us the impact that standardised packaging was having as part of—this is absolutely critical—a wider anti-smoking strategy in no longer portraying smoking as cool and glamorous or cigarettes as a “must have” accessory, but instead portraying a much less desirable, and far more truthful, image.
It is revealing that hard data are already coming from Australia—something that I am sure Sir Cyril will want to look at. A study in Victoria, Australia, published in the British Medical Journal, concluded that when consuming cigarettes from the new packs, smokers are 66% more likely to think their cigarettes were of poorer quality, 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying and 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day. Why is that? Because standardised packs carry powerful health messages that expose the reality of smoking. Frankly, having seen some of the images, it would take a very strong stomach or tightly closed eyes to be unaffected by them.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. Before I start, I shall not miss this opportunity to chide both Front Benches. I have spoken about this in the past and tabled many amendments on different health Bills. The last time that I tried was with the Labour Government. The Minister taking the legislation through was not the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I did not succeed on that day in getting my amendment through. Obviously, the government Benches were not going to support me, but I did have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who is not in her place and who was the Front Bench health spokesman of the Liberal Democrats. I did not have the support of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at the time—hence I did not succeed.
However, I am delighted to congratulate the Government on having, in a step-wise fashion—and as a result of efforts made by many other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—reached a place where they can bring forward an amendment to address the public health evidence that plain packaging will make a difference to the uptake of smoking of cigarettes, in particular by children. I am particularly delighted that the government amendment includes not just external packaging but internal packaging. I remember my days as a young medical student, when one would rush out and buy Sobranie Black Russians because the cigarettes were wrapped in nice black paper with gold tips. At the same time, we would also buy a packet of Sobranie Cocktails to impress the ladies we were taking to dances because they came in multicoloured wrappers—so packaging makes a difference, even to a young medical student.
I am therefore delighted to see the Government’s amendment. I have no doubt whatever that Sir Cyril Chantler, whom I know well as a friend, will be absolutely meticulous in looking at the evidence. I am convinced by the evidence and I hope that he will be, too.
Let me turn to the issue of smoking in cars when children are present. I have taken the trouble to look at all the evidence about second-hand smoke in confined spaces. I have looked at the public health evidence from the Surgeon General of the United States, from Australia, from New Zealand and from Great Britain—both epidemiological and observational studies. The findings are quite interesting: undoubtedly, second-hand smoking is harmful. It is harmful to children—more so because their metabolic rate is higher, so any injurious substances that they inhale are bound to have a greater effect. It is harmful also to adults, particularly older people who have respiratory conditions or cardiac disease. It is harmful also to pregnant mothers who do not smoke, among whom there is a higher rate of still-births and infant deaths because of the epigenetic effects of the inhalation of injurious substances during their pregnancy. It is worse if they smoke during their pregnancy, but even if they do not, the effect of second-hand smoke is harmful to them.
There is further evidence, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, that some of the injurious substances in tobacco smoke persist on certain surfaces for a very long time. So this issue is not just about smoking when there are children in a car; it is also about making that car harmful to children because injurious substances persist. That also applies to any confined space. So the question is: what legislation will have the greatest public health effect? Will it be legislation that stops smoking in cars when children are present? Will it be legislation that bans smoking completely? Of course, it will be the latter, but that will not be possible—such legislation is too draconian. Could it be a good educational programme that teaches people that if you smoke in front of children, whether in a confined space or in an open space, or if children just see you smoking, that is wrong and harmful?
I was accused by my wife of smoking 20 to 40 cigarettes a day. All young doctors smoked in those days; it was the thing to do. Not all doctors smoke these days. When I saw my daughter, who was 11 months old, watch me lighting a cigarette, it was the day that I stopped smoking. She might object to me giving her age, but she is past 40—just, and she is a cancer doctor, so she understands these things. I felt that her observing me lighting a cigarette would be as harmful to her as her taking up smoking. The issue that we should therefore debate is what would have the greatest public health gain, whether for children—more importantly for children—or for young adults, older people and pregnant mothers.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, seeks more targeted education and some consultation to find the evidence. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, seeks to have on the statute that a regulation must be brought in. I was talking about regulations pertaining only to cars. The evidence that I have looked at would suggest that we should ban smoking in cars completely, because that way there would be no possibility of anybody smoking in cars and leaving injurious substances behind that may harm children. That may or may not be a better deal than that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but my plea is, “Let us look at what would be the best public health gain”.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Howe on his amendment. I wholly support what he said about packaging and about appointing Sir Cyril Chantler. I have the good fortune of knowing Sir Cyril. Like the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who spoke a moment ago, I believe that he is a man of impeccable integrity and great knowledge and I am sure my noble friend could not have chosen anyone better. I do not want to dilate on that subject.
I have smoked two cigarettes in my life. I was 15 years old; they were Woodbines and it was behind the bike shed. They were thoroughly disgusting—I have never smoked since and I never want to smoke. I am afraid I cannot say the same for my wife, although I think she has cut down a bit; she certainly does not smoke in my presence, either in the car or at home.
It is beyond doubt that we can and should accept everything that has been said about the dangers of smoking by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble friend—my friend in every way—Lord Ribeiro. We should do everything possible to deter people from smoking. I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone in congratulating my noble friend Lord Ribeiro on the birth of his grandson. I would be entirely in favour of the parents of the grandson of the noble Lord, Lord Ribeiro, being sent a note about the dangers of smoking. I would be entirely in favour of the parents of every newborn child being specifically warned about the dangers to children of passive smoking. I would be entirely in favour of increasing the taxes on cigarettes. I would be in favour of extra insurance premiums for people who smoke. I would not object to there being a column about smoking on car insurance forms, and, if you tick the smoking box, there being an extra premium that goes directly to the battle against smoking. I would be entirely in favour of all those things or permutations of them. There are many that we could all think of.
However, when it comes to the question of smoking in motor vehicles, my noble friend Lord Ribeiro introduced his amendment skilfully, tactfully and undogmatically. I have no argument with that, but I believe that his essential premise is wrong. To advocate any law that is going to be exceptionally difficult to police and enforce, and moreover brings the state into the private space of individuals, is to be deplored.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, can I just ask the noble Lord about the whole of the child protection law as it stands at the moment, which is in every private space to protect children from neglect, emotional harm and, indeed, abuse within their own homes.
I believe that this is actual harm. It is extraordinarily difficult to police every home, as we know from what happens to social workers and social services every time something occurs in a local authority because the policing has been so difficult. That does not stop us having legislation to ensure that in private space, the child is protected from harm. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, just how harmful it is. Were it left to me, I would legislate in the private space of the home. Having been brought up in a two-bedroom house on a working class estate, I think that my lungs have suffered. I am just pointing out that we legislate for private space, because that point has been raised on a number of occasions.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, that was really a speech rather than an intervention. There is all the difference in the world between the physical or sexual exploitation of a child and smoking. Smoking is not an illegal activity. Some of us may wish that it were, but it is not. It would be wholly impractical, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, made plain in his remarks, for us to outlaw smoking. That is a road down which we cannot go. Therefore, to invade the private space of individuals who are committing a perfectly legal act seems to me a step too far. That is why we should look at other means. I have mentioned taxation and increased insurance premiums; there are many routes down which we could go to make it more and more difficult for adults to smoke in the presence of children.
Most importantly, it is up to experienced people such as the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Ribeiro to ensure that there is a well informed education campaign so that no one is in any doubt that smoking is a harmful activity and that inhaling passive smoke is dangerous and injurious to health. I am with the noble Baroness and my noble friend on that all the way, but the invasion of personal space—prosecuting people for what is a legal activity—seems a step too far. That is why, while I welcome and applaud the amendment introduced by my noble friend Lord Howe—if there were a Division, although I am sure that there will not be, I would enthusiastically go into the Lobby to support him—I cannot support something that I believe is a step too far in the invasion of personal space, which would also be monumentally difficult to enforce. We have to bear in mind the responsibilities of the police, whose job it would be to stop the cars and ask the questions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Does not the noble Lord accept that, although there may be difficulties of enforcement, the very fact of passing a law combined with the kind of educational programme that he supports is likely to have a positive effect?
Lord Cormack
No, frankly, I do not. I respect the noble Lord—he knows that—and we agree on many issues, but we will have to disagree on this one. I think it would make the job of the police even more difficult than it is at the moment and endanger what popularity they have with many law-abiding citizens. It is a burden that we should not place on them.
I repeat: let us do everything we can to educate; let us do everything we can to deter; let us have the plain packaging; let us listen very carefully to what Sir Cyril says in his report; but let us not take the ultimate step that the noble Lord advocates.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I congratulate the Government on having listened about packaging of tobacco. I also support the amendments to protect children from people smoking in vehicles. Apart from damaging children’s health, smoke gets in their eyes and is very unpleasant. There are also small babies and pregnant mothers whose unborn children need protecting. I hope that the noble Earl can give the House some assurance that there will be regulations that will protect these vulnerable babies and children. I would add that people with asthma, and all chest problems, should also be protected because this is really dangerous for their health.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I ask noble Lords to consider the following points as we debate these amendments. More than 800 children visit their doctors every day due to the serious effect of second-hand smoke exposure, according to research published by the Royal College of Physicians. The survey also highlights that 65% of parents who smoke admit to doing so in the car with their children and other people’s children present, and that 75% of smoking parents were shocked to hear that second-hand smoke affects the health of so many children. If they had not been asked that question they would not have been aware of this, so they really need to be educated.
Asthma UK has stated quite clearly that second-hand smoke is a major trigger for asthma attacks, making the symptoms even worse. It believes that if we take action to reduce second-hand smoke, we will be a step closer to a world where asthma begins to be no longer a daily struggle, or where no one dies from that condition. The children’s charity Sparks—I declare an interest as one of its trustees—spends millions of pounds on research to eradicate asthma among children, a condition which is growing daily. Sparks dearly believes that if we take action to protect children from second-hand smoke, that will be helpful to children. So let us give careful consideration to what action we should take to protect children from the result of second-hand smoking and act robustly in the best interests of the child.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I very much support the aims behind Amendment 62, and indeed an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said about doing something really firm to prevent smoking in cars when children are present. This amendment certainly seems a sensible and straightforward way to ensure that all children have a healthy start in life, without the harmful influence of tobacco smoke in their young and still developing bodies.
We have heard that opponents of the proposed ban on smoking in cars have argued that legislation on activity in private vehicles would constitute an invasion of people’s private space. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, even said in Committee on this amendment that although smoke-free public spaces legislation has proven to be extremely successful in reducing people’s exposure to second-hand smoke,
“it does not automatically follow from that that it is right to extend the scope of legislation to cover private cars”.—[Official Report, 20/11/13; col. GC 412.]
However, in the case of child protection, this may not be such a stretch of the imagination. My noble friend Lady Howarth absolutely spelt out that the issue of child protection is a perfect example of this distinction playing a secondary consideration to the well-being and health of the child. Children are protected by the law from abuse and neglect wherever they are.
I have heard about the impact that tobacco smoke has on the health of children. We have all heard about it. Their bodies are still developing and they are much more likely to be affected by smoke-related illnesses than their adult counterparts. A Royal College of Physicians report estimated that smoking around children causes more than 20,000 cases of lower respiratory tract infection; 120,00 cases of middle-ear disease; at least 22,000 new cases of wheeze and asthma; 200 cases of bacterial meningitis; and 40 sudden infant deaths—one in five of all SIDs.
We know that only a proportion of people continue to smoke around children, so the level of illness in children due to second-hand smoke is staggering. It would be difficult to impose such a law on the home—we have heard this already—but we can do something about children's exposure to smoke in cars. We also know that tobacco smoke pollution levels in vehicles can be 23 times greater than in a house. I am talking, of course, about a car with a roof on it. Moreover, when a child is strapped into the car, they do not have a choice about leaving the room—a choice possible, at least for some children, in their home—when adults are smoking.
More needs to be done to protect children from avoidable harm, whether this harm takes place in private vehicles or in public spaces. Moreover, there is also a precedent for banning smoking in vehicles. Cars are already recognised as potentially dangerous spaces for second-hand smoke exposure due to their confined spaces. This is why smoking has already been banned in all vehicles used for the purpose of work in the UK since July 2007. It is surely astounding that we cannot do something effective to protect children as well. There are no restrictions on smoking in private vehicles with children present. I believe fully that this needs to change.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, the greater majority of people live in smoke-free homes, not because of the law, but because it is no longer acceptable to smoke in the home of a non-smoker. Equally, most smokers no longer allow smoking in their cars when children are present.
It is absolutely correct to protect children from second-hand smoke, but it is wrong to think that it is children who are most at risk from its catastrophic consequences. While it is estimated that there are 1 million children with asthma, adults with asthma outnumber them by four to one—and I am one of them. While open windows in cars have been mentioned by a couple of noble Lords, I would have an asthma attack on the motorway with my windows closed if there was someone smoking a cigar at some time somewhere ahead. Also, the greatest risk from second-hand smoke is to those with a pre-existing heart condition.
The objective of Amendment 57BB, therefore, must not be simply to protect children but rather to further change public attitudes and behaviour so that people no longer smoke in cars carrying any passenger. Just as the law focused on workplaces had a great effect on smoking at home, it is hoped that this amendment will reduce the harm caused to non-smokers of all ages.
As it is the noble Earl’s birthday today, I hope he will accept this amendment.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I want to make it clear that I have no interest to declare on this Bill. I have never smoked and I have no investments in any tobacco company. However, it remains a fact that 20% of our nation smokes. That 20% expects someone at least to speak up for the implications for it of any legislation that we in Parliament propose.
Perhaps surprisingly, the first dimension of the amendment that I draw to the House’s attention is a constitutional one. I think many noble Lords will know that in another place I was Chairman of Ways and Means, and there one had to be very careful about constitutional innovations—I shall put it like that. This amendment is a constitutional innovation. Leaving aside the detail about the standard packaging for a moment, the broad framework of the amendment defines what the regulation is to be and says that the Secretary of State, not Parliament down at the other end, may make those regulations. We need to be quite clear about this. The amendment goes on to say, in new subsection (12):
“The Secretary of State must”—
not “may”—
“obtain the consent of the Scottish Ministers … the consent of the Welsh Ministers”,
and,
“the consent of the Office of the First Minister … in Northern Ireland”.
What it does not say is that the regulation needs to receive the consent of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords may be very comfortable with that in relation to standard packaging, but I wonder whether they would be equally comfortable if it directly involved other packaged goods industries. One has in mind the sugar industry, the alcohol industry and the fizzy drinks industry, and there must be myriad others that interest groups outside would lobby to have contained or indeed restricted. I just put that on the record because it is a novel dimension to our constitution that I would like to have studied in a little more detail rather than have it sneaked in, if I may put it that way, in this Bill.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
Does the noble Lord realise that if the Secretary of State makes regulations, they will have to be done by statutory instrument? Statutory instruments are either affirmative or negative. In the case of a negative instrument we can pray against it, and in the case of an affirmative one we can debate it. Both Houses will have the opportunity to consider them.
Lord Naseby
While it is true that there is an opportunity to debate a statutory instrument after the Statutory Instruments Committee has looked at it and decided that it wishes to do so, nevertheless—
Lord Naseby
Let me just finish. Your Lordships know full well that there is absolutely no way that we may amend any statutory instrument; we either take it as it comes or we reject it. I am just pointing out that this is a change to the procedures of this House that we have had hereto. The noble Countess may disagree with me—it happens quite often in law that people disagree—but I have had advice. Perhaps she also had advice on her intervention. I leave that aspect; it is on the record now.
I turn specifically to the amendment and its contents. There are three aspects of it that I draw to the House’s attention. First is the matter of intellectual property rights. Such rights are a key dimension to any industry, particularly in the packaged goods world, where I had the privilege to work for some 20 years. Those rights are something that most of those industries have had for centuries. They distinguish between one product and another from a competitor; importantly, they produce a quality assurance for those who buy the product; and they provide for the businesses to have valuable assets that they can produce innovations from and so create competition. Those are assets to those companies that should not lightly be cast aside. There may be particular reasons why some of them should be confined at certain times in certain circumstances, but personally I think that society needs to tread very carefully.
In relation to this amendment, there is the legal situation. I am not a lawyer, but I have had a look and sought advice on the exact legal situation as matters stand at the moment. As I understand it, there are four constraints on Her Majesty’s Government. When my noble friend winds up, I hope he will be able to reassure me that all these issues have been dealt with. Otherwise, the Government will have to deal with them before this part of the Bill becomes law.
The constraints are: first, Article 34 of TFEU covering the free movement of tobacco products; secondly, Article 13(1) of the tobacco products directive which affects the free movement of goods; thirdly, it would produce a disproportionate and unjustified interference with a company’s property rights, which are specifically protected in the UK by, surprisingly, the Human Rights Act 1998 and in the EU by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and would cut across the UK’s obligations made under international law, several World Trade Organisation agreements, particularly the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, and other agreements. Finally, I understand that fewer than five countries are taking action against the EU in relation to what this amendment addresses. My first question to my noble friend is, am I right in what I have been advised is the situation? If I am right, what action are the Government taking successfully to overcome what I see as considerable hurdles ahead?
I am not going to go through the whole of standardised packaging because this is not the appropriate time to do that but, in the round, as far as I see it as a marketing man looking at the evidence, there is as yet no real hard evidence. There are lots of assumptions and attitudes from surveys, but there is no hard evidence that consumption of cigarettes will fall if we have standardised packaging. Consumption is already falling without standardised packaging, and I am sure it will continue to fall in future, but I do not see any hard evidence that that will come.
What I do see is that it will be very bad for CTNs—confectionary, tobacco and newspaper shops—of which there are well over 100,000 in the United Kingdom. About 20% to 25% of their business is dependent on tobacco products. It is exceedingly bad news for them. It is pretty bad news for the 60,000-odd people employed in the industry. It is exceedingly good news for the counterfeiters, and we see increasing evidence of the number of counterfeit products. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head—these are facts. We have facts on the importation of counterfeit products.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
The figures on counterfeiting reached a peak in 2000 and have been steadily falling year by year. If the noble Lord had listened to my remarks earlier, he would have heard that I said that there is no reason why standard packaging should not be at least as secure as existing branded packs.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I would like to ask a short question.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are on Report. Noble Lords have one opportunity to speak. They can intervene to ask a question to seek elucidation from somebody who is speaking. Providing that is what noble Lords do, those interventions are all right. They must seek clarification from, or ask a question of, the person who is speaking.
Lord Naseby
I reassure the House that I do not intend to speak for very much longer. I respond to the noble Lord opposite by pointing out that the latest figures for Australia indicate an increase of 13% following the introduction of standardised packaging for counterfeit and illegal cigarettes. Therefore the most current evidence—perhaps he can get up to date—is a little more relevant. To finish on standardised packaging, if 20% of our nation smokes legitimately, and we have a legitimate industry, do people not have a right to choose between one pack which they like the look of as opposed to another pack?
I will finish with Australia. I, too, welcome Sir Cyril Chantler as chairman. I also know him quite well and have known him for a very long time. He will already be able to see two results. One is that standardised packaging has done absolutely nothing to the prevalence of smoking in Australia, and the other, as I have just mentioned as evidence to the noble Lord opposite, is the worrying fact that the illegal market has increased by 13%, up to an all-time high in Australia of 13% of all consumption.
I draw the House’s attention to a book in the Library which refers to the situation in the United Kingdom during the war. It is called Black Market Britain, 1939-55, by Mark Roodhouse, and it features, among other evidence, what happened to the cigarette market during the time of the black market. I refer to that book because if we go down the route of standardised packaging, a black market will undoubtedly emerge.
I wish Sir Cyril well; we await his report with interest, and I am sure that it will be balanced and thorough. However, whatever that report produces, I ask that first, the Government will give adequate time to this House to have a short debate on it, and secondly, and perhaps more importantly, that the industry will have a reasonable amount of time—and by that I mean some weeks and not days—to look at the evidence that is provided by Sir Cyril and to put its view to the Secretary of State on its interpretation.
Finally, I will wind up on a couple of other questions, specifically on proposed subsection (4)(d) of Amendment 57B on,
“reducing the appeal or attractiveness of tobacco products”.
I submit that that has little to do with the packaging. Proposed subsection (8)(d), which refers to,
“the shape of such products”—
as opposed to the package—does not have anything to do with the packaging, and proposed subsection (8)(e) would even more insidiously apply to,
“the flavour of such products”.
Given that by nature all cigarettes are different, as tobacco is a vegetable product and they all taste different, I do not see how on earth the Secretary of State can intervene regarding the flavour of tobacco. I have already mentioned the contrast between the consent of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and our own home Parliament.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness for intervening earlier. I wanted to ask a short and straightforward question of the Minister. Should the noble Earl’s amendment be accepted—I hope it is because I greet it hugely; noble Lords will know how much it means to me—can he tell us in his summing up what the timetable is likely to be as regards when the research would take place and how long it might take? If, when that was completed, the outcome was positive—I recognise that because it is research it could go either way—when would the Government be likely to bring in the legislation? I recognise that we are moving towards an election and I hope that the Minister would want to get this on the statute book before he might or might not leave office. We already have legislation on not displaying cigarettes, but I still go in to my local tobacconist and see displays of cigarettes, so I wonder what is happening about that.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to Amendments 57B and 62. First, on Amendment 57B, the Government are to be congratulated. The package that they propose—if I dare to use the term “package”—of proxy purchase, e-cigarettes and looking at the whole question of standardised packaging of cigarettes and tobacco products is to be welcomed. I think it will result in thousands of people being saved from getting respiratory and lung diseases; it will save literally thousands of lives. I congratulate the Minister and the Government. I want also to thank those cross-party noble Lords who put down the original amendment, because they initiated this debate.
On Amendment 62, I said in Committee and say again: some noble Lords have mentioned their grandchildren. Can you imagine carrying your grandson or granddaughter in a carry-cot, putting that child into a metal box—a car—and allowing somebody to pump cigarette fumes into that metal box? You would not do that at all; you would not allow that to happen. Whatever our concerns are about personal space or civil liberties or whatever it is, this is about the rights of a child; the rights of a baby. A baby cannot say, “Well, actually, I don’t mind”; a child cannot say, “Actually, I don’t mind”. In fact, research—certainly from talking to children—shows that they do mind. As we have heard, we can see when we look at the figures that children are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke. Why? Because they have small lungs, because they have faster breathing, and because they have a less developed immune system. That makes them more susceptible to respiratory problems: asthma, bronchitis and lung malfunction. Knowing that, and that passive smoking results in more than 165,000 new episodes of all sorts of diseases associated with lungs and respiration—and I am talking about children here—are we serious about allowing children and babies to be strapped in a car where that happens? Surely not; all the other arguments pale into insignificance.
We seem to cite lots of surveys here. Interestingly, in 2010 a survey that directly asked 11 year-olds and 15 year-olds found that one in five reported being exposed to second-hand smoke in cars.
A number of people have said, “How are we going to make this happen? The police are very busy; can we really make it happen?”. I have two answers to that. Do noble Lords remember when seat-belt legislation was suggested? People got up and said, “Oh no, this is an attack on my civil liberties; oh no, we will solve the problem by advertising”. It was the “clunk click” advertisement, was it not? Oh—perhaps we had better move on from that. With the “clunk click” advertisements, in fact, something like 24% of people started to belt up in cars. Legislation was then brought in and we found that 97% of people then put on a seat belt. We do that automatically; we do not think about it, or sit in our cars saying, “This is an infringement of our liberties; we shouldn’t be doing this”; we do it. Why do we do it? Because it saves lives: it saves our lives and the lives of other people who are travelling in the car.
Interestingly, a study conducted in Scotland—we talk about Scotland a lot in this Chamber, thank goodness—suggested that air quality inside a smoker’s car was comparable to industrial smog in cities such as Beijing or Moscow, even when the driver has the window open. Are we seriously suggesting that children and young people should be subjected to air quality which is akin to that in Beijing or Moscow? Of course, we are not. Research by Aberdeen University found that 7% of 11 year-olds experience smoking in cars. That is why I am pleased that one of my colleagues in Scotland, the Liberal Democrat MSP, Jim Hume, is introducing a Private Member’s Bill looking at safeguarding children by banning smoking in cars. That is now going out to public consultation.
I end by making two further brief points. It is easy to find all sorts of reasons why you cannot do something. We could ask, “What about cars that are convertible? What about yachts? What about this? What about that?”. However, if you believe in something and think that it is right, you get on and do it. My only regret regarding the amendment is that it was initially an all-party amendment. When I listen to the news, I hear that it is a Labour initiative. I am sorry that it has been politicised and has become a party-political issue; I hoped that it would not be.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The noble Lord has made an impassioned speech. My understanding was that the original cross-party amendment had been degrouped and would be taken only late at night. I therefore brought forward this amendment to enable the House to make a decision. I agree with him about the cross-party nature of the debate.
Lord Storey
I respect what the noble Lord says and thank him for it.
The Minister is a listening Minister. I hope that he will reflect on what has been said and accept the amendment because it is important to take the whole House with him on issues such as this. I hope that he will look again at continuing the advertising campaign but, perhaps more importantly, that he will consider a review of this issue so that we can go forward on it together.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, I wish to add a word on the amendment about smoking in cars when children are present. I do not wish to say anything about standardised packaging because I thoroughly support the amendment on that. However, so far as smoking is concerned, the support for the relevant amendment is focused on smoking in motor cars. However, that is not what the amendment says. It refers to “a private vehicle”. Motor cars are a very common—perhaps the most common—species of private vehicle, but there are all sorts of other private vehicles that one must take into account as well. The word “drives”, commonly used in relation to motor vehicles, comes from the driving of carriages and ponies and traps. Suppose that somebody has a pony and trap, and has a child in the trap, why on earth should he or she not smoke? If this amendment were confined simply to motor cars, I would have no objection to it at all; indeed, I think that I would support it. However, in relation to all private vehicles, it simply goes too far. I do not believe that was intended and I think the wording should be modified accordingly.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
My Lords, I think the score is about 10 or 11 to one in favour of the amendments. I will be the second noble Lord to speak against both amendments. I shall take a little while to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon
If we consider this in terms of the time given to the “fors” and the “againsts”, as I have already said, it is about 11 to one, and it is going to be about 11 to two. I intend to make the points that I intended to make before this debate started.
First, I declare my interest. I am an associate member of the Lords and Commons Pipe and Cigar Smokers’ Club. I am an associate member because I do not smoke, but I believe that users of a legal product should be allowed to enjoy it without continuous harassment by government and an army of lobbyists such as ASH, which is subsidised, and the BMA. Smokers, unfortunately, are treated as social lepers, although let us not forget that they contribute some £10.5 billion per annum to the Treasury. If they are such lepers, perhaps we should not accept their money.
In my view, the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is perhaps one of the most extreme Henry VIII pieces of legislation that I have ever seen, and I am sorry to see that it is in his name. I want to take the House back in history to 4 February 2009. Let us hear what the noble Earl said then, when we were discussing the ban on tobacco displays:
“The Bill’s proposals to outlaw point-of-sale displays of tobacco products are unjustified and repressive. The evidence to back them up is flimsy, and the data has been hyped. In 2002, when tobacco advertising was banned, the Government said that they had no plans to interfere with the right of retailers to display a perfectly legal product in shops. We must be absolutely sure of our ground before removing that right”.—[Official Report, 4/2/09; col. 749.]
I believe that the noble Earl was right then and is wrong today because he is going further than the previous Government dared to do. Not only have we banned the display of cigarette packets and what have you but now plain packaging will be banned as well, and that seems quite an absurdity.
The new clause proposed in Amendment 57B is so detailed as to be almost incomprehensible. The Government are now proposing to intervene in the nooks and crannies of design and, indeed, even in the fabric of cigarette and other tobacco packets. There are 19 ways in which the Government are going to intervene and tell the tobacco manufacturers how they can display their products. That, I believe, is going much too far. In passing, I suppose that I ought to note that the display legislation is not yet fully operative—small retailers will not be banned from displaying these products until 2015. So here we are, before the ban even comes into force, going even further than the previous Government did, which at the time the noble Earl, Lord Howe, opposed.
We have heard a lot in the past few days about cutting regulation but the Government are also increasing regulation, of which this amendment is the nastiest example. I do not have time to go into the complete detail, although I should go through the whole amendment but I will not.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
My Lords, different views have been expressed by a number of noble Lords and I shall speak very briefly. The accumulated evidence relating to plain packaging of cigarettes that has arisen over the past few years is incontrovertible, and for that reason the Government’s amendment is extremely welcome.
So far as smoking in cars is concerned, there is no doubt whatever that passive smoking is extremely dangerous. The concentration of the effects of passive smoking within an enclosed space such as a motor car is particularly dangerous for children. Again, the medical evidence on this is incontrovertible. The point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Scott, on the issue of people smoking in a pony and trap, is an interesting one but could readily be dealt with by regulations under the amendment to restrict the provisions to enclosed motor cars and so forth.
I listened exceptionally carefully to the very erudite and persuasive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, whose views I normally fully support and accept. Unlike him, who was disgusted by smoking two Woodbines behind the bike sheds, I first smoked a Woodbine in a mining village in County Durham at the age of 10 and I enjoyed it. By the time I was a teenager, I was a regular smoker. When I was in the Army in the late 1940s as second in command of a hospital ship, I could get a can of 50 Senior Service for one shilling and eight pence, which lasted me two days, so I was a heavy smoker. It took me a long time to get over it.
The question I would put to the noble Lord and the noble Earl is this: the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, took a great deal of time to talk about the difficulty of policing this amendment if it were carried into law. But is it any more difficult for the police to recognise someone smoking in a vehicle containing children than it is to recognise someone who is not wearing a seatbelt or using a mobile phone illegally? I do not believe that it is. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important but very long debate. However, my name is attached to three of the amendments in the group and I beg the indulgence of the House to make a few comments in, I hope, concluding the debate before the Minister responds. I want to thank the Minister in particular for his role in responding to the widespread support for standardised packaging within and beyond the House. The crucial role that he personally played in the Government conceding on this measure is recognised across the House. I am also grateful for his commitment on the record today that it is the Government’s clear intention to implement these measures as soon as possible, subject to the outcome of the evidential review. I hope that he can further confirm that the action will follow very swiftly in response to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, about the timetable.
The Government’s intention to bring forward at Third Reading measures to ban proxy purchasing of cigarettes and e-cigarettes, taken together with this amendment on standardised packaging, will make a significant difference to the exposure to and take-up of cigarettes by young people. However, there is one other distinct and significant health hazard to children from smoking that we should include in this package of measures, and that is in relation to smoking in private vehicles and enclosed vehicles.
Our Amendment 57BB would simply enable the Government to bring forward regulations to make it an offence to expose children to tobacco smoke in cars, once the Government, with others, had reviewed the detailed implications and practicalities that such a measure would entail. That process of review and developing regulations would take account of all the questions raised across the House today about what if, would it mean this and would it mean that. It is an enabling amendment.
When it was first proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in Grand Committee, I was profoundly struck by the power of her argument about the particular vulnerability of children in this very enclosed situation and the impact on their health and development at their immature stage. It is obvious. I have heard no dissent in the House today about why passive smoking by children in cars is a very bad thing and ideally should not happen. I will not rehearse those arguments, which have been very well made again today by Members across the House.
However, I want to focus briefly on concerns that have been expressed about the amendment and the arguments against it. There have been three main arguments. One is the basic libertarian argument that people should be free to do what they like in their cars because they are private spaces and should not be fettered. But when we are considering freedoms, as we have done in our history, there is always a balance. Freedom for some is often at the expense of freedom for other people. The balance we are considering here is between the freedom for adults to smoke in cars when they like and the freedom for children not to breathe in that smoke in a situation from which they, by definition, as several noble Lords pointed out, cannot escape.
When responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for whom I have great respect, as he knows, said that there is a difference between smoking, which is a legal activity, and other things that we have prohibited in the home in relation to children. But the things that we were talking about then, such as neglect of children and the beating of children, have not always been illegal in the home. They were made illegal because they are particularly harmful to the well-being of children. We take it for granted now that such things are illegal but they were not always. We invaded that private space because of the need to protect children. The same argument applies. Because of the degree of damage that we know smoking in cars causes, we should apply the same argument here.
Lord Cormack
I have been thinking a lot during this debate. Is not the answer to make it obligatory for all new cars to have a smoke alarm fitted?
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
That particular measure would not deal with the issue of prohibition, so I cannot see how it would necessarily help. The alarm may go off, but if it is still legal for adults to smoke with children in the car, there would be no consequence to its going off. There are precedents, because this is a child protection issue, for our proceeding along this route.
The second argument was: if cars, why not private homes? There have been contributions today that have made it clear, citing research by the British Lung Foundation and other bodies, that there are real and qualitatively different levels of risk to children from the smoke in a confined space, from which they cannot escape, compared to that in homes. Yes, children will be harmed in some homes where space is limited. That is undoubtedly true. But the potential for children to escape those spaces is clearly there in a home situation. They can go outside as well. In a car, the toxicity levels and the fact that the child is trapped make that a distinctly different situation, of which we should take account with this amendment.
The third argument has concerned the difficulty of enforcement.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know that people want to make progress, but just on this point about private space—where the noble Baroness is making the distinction between a motorcar where the children cannot escape and, say, a room in a small flat where there are smokers—what about a baby in a carry-cot? They cannot move to another room.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
No, that is true. I know that the noble Lord is very exercised by these issues, and I respect his point of view. A baby of itself could not move to another room. However—we have these arguments in many ways—the fact that we cannot remove the harm to all children in all situations presented by passive smoking is not an argument in itself for not taking the action that we could take to reduce the harm to the majority of children in the most dangerous situations. That is the argument in support of this amendment.
The third argument we heard was about enforcement. Again, we had some helpful contributions which I was going to make myself, but I shall just mention them. This is primarily not about enforcement, and we have precedence here with the ban on using mobile phones in cars, the mandatory use of seat belts and the ban on smoking in public places. All of those were hotly contested before legislation came in. I particularly remember the ban on smoking in public places because I was involved in it. That measure not only established smoke-free common areas for people but, equally importantly—and it is true of the other two measures—precipitated the biggest reduction in smoking we have seen: a significant and beneficial change in behaviour on a massive scale. That is the issue here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, pointed out. I have no doubt that this would precipitate a very significant change in behaviour in relation to smoking in cars with children. Particularly when we see so much public support for the measure, I think that we could anticipate that.
I say again that Amendment 57BB is enabling. It would entail further discussion about the practicalities and the detail of the regulation. We fully accept the need for that and welcome it. However, it is an important measure for children and I hope that the House will support it.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been a fascinating and very helpful debate and I am very pleased with the support that I have heard for the government amendments on standardised packaging. I would like, if I may, to commend noble Lords for their continued work in supporting tobacco control. We all want to drive down rates of smoking in this country and, in particular, to stop young people from taking up smoking in the first place. Let me address the points on standardised packaging first.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lord McColl tabled a revised amendment following discussion in Grand Committee, and I see that they reflected the comments that I made in redrafting it. I particularly welcome their support for the Government’s amendments and can reassure them that our amendments would achieve all of the things that they seek to do.
My noble friend Lord Naseby raised a number of legal issues. I would like to reassure him that we have given very careful consideration to the legal situation. We believe that the government amendment gives us sufficient room to proceed with the regulations, should we choose to do so, and introduce standardised packaging, if that is what is decided. He queried the fact that the amendment is drafted in such a way that the devolved Administrations and Assemblies have to give consent, but it is the Secretary of State and not Parliament who gives consent in England. We do of course want Parliament to have a say, which is why we have introduced Amendment 63B to make the regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—whose robust state of health I very much welcome—indicated that there has been no proper consultation on standardised packaging. In fact, in 2012 the Government ran a full public consultation and received almost 2,500 substantive responses and well over half a million postcard and petition responses. The consultation asked 15 specific questions and invited comments on the consultation stage impact assessment, which was also published. So it was a very thorough exercise.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, suggested that this was the thin end of the wedge, if I can put it that way, and might herald similar measures in relation to junk food. I think we need to remember that tobacco is a uniquely harmful consumer good. Tobacco kills one in two long-term smokers. There is no safe level of smoking. That is why we have a range of specific legislation and an international treaty around tobacco control.
My noble friend Lord Naseby referred to illicit tobacco. We received a wide range of responses to the question in the consultation on illicit tobacco. They are summarised in the consultation report. In 2000, around 21% of the UK cigarette market was illicit. The latest estimate from HMRC, for 2012-13, is that this has dropped to around 9%. It is too high, I concede, but we are heading in a positive direction.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, asked about the timetable for the regulations. I emphasise here that I do not want to pre-empt any decision that the Government may make on whether to proceed with standardised tobacco packaging, and I know that the noble Baroness understands that; but equally for that reason, it would be premature to set out a detailed timetable. What I can confirm is that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure an appropriate opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. She may like to be aware that before being laid in Parliament, any draft regulation that seeks to regulate tobacco packaging would need to be notified to the European Commission and member states. There is a process that goes with that, which would mean that we would not be able to lay regulations instantly after taking a positive decision. I am happy, however, to reiterate the Government’s commitment to make a decision quickly when we receive Sir Cyril Chantler’s independent report. Tabling these amendments is, I hope, evidence of our commitment to act without delay if we decide to go ahead. But the Government, as I am sure she appreciates, must rightly consider the wider issues raised by this policy, and I can assure her that we will do so.
I can understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in tabling both of his amendments, Amendments 57BA and 61, which seek to compel Ministers to introduce standardised packaging. However, I am sure that he will not be surprised to hear me say that we cannot accept provisions that tie our hands in this way. One of the amendments imposes an arbitrary timetable for government action, and both pre-empt Ministers’ proper and careful decision-making, involving consideration of all the relevant issues. Litigation by the tobacco industry is always a risk when introducing tobacco control legislation. Indeed, the World Health Organisation says that one of the six main forms of tobacco industry interference in public health is the intimidation of Governments with litigation or the threat of litigation. Government must have time and space to give proper consideration to the wider issues raised by standardised packaging of tobacco, and demonstrate that it has done so. Doing so will also reduce the risk of successful litigation. I do appreciate the desire to go faster but we must follow the proper decision-making process to enable us to arrive at the right policy decision. It is right that we should wait for Sir Cyril’s report. Once we do, I say again, we will make a decision quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me to put on the record that we will definitely introduce the regulations should the case be made and should we be persuaded of the case that Sir Cyril presents. I hope that I have been clear about that. I will repeat the comments made by my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health when she announced the review:
“The Government will introduce standardised tobacco packaging if, following the review and consideration of the wider issues raised by this policy, we are satisfied that there are sufficient grounds to proceed, including public health benefit”.—[Official Report, 28/11/13; col. WS 96.]
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lord McColl for having made clear their intention not to press their amendment on standardised packaging. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will do the same with theirs.
I turn to smoking in cars. Since we considered the issue at the previous stage of the Bill, I have met a number of noble Lords who support the idea of legislating to stop smoking in cars with children present. I have also listened very carefully to the debate as it has proceeded this afternoon. One thing is clear from those meetings and the debate—we all want to eradicate smoking in cars carrying children. None of us wants to see children continuing to be exposed to harmful second-hand smoke, whether in the home or the family car. However, although we agree on the destination, I have to acknowledge that there are differing views on the most effective route. As your Lordships will know, the Government believe that encouraging positive and lasting behaviour change by making smokers aware of the significant health risks of second-hand smoke will be more effective than resorting to the use of legislation—which is of course a blunt instrument—to tackle the problem. I believe very clearly that we should consider resorting to the use of legislation only if our work to promote positive changes in behaviour is shown not to have had the desired effect.
When we debated this issue in Grand Committee, a good deal of time was spent considering the practicalities of enforcing an offence of smoking in cars carrying children. I do not propose to rehearse those arguments in detail again today. Nevertheless, I want to encourage your Lordships to reflect on just how difficult it would be to enforce such a provision. My noble friend Lord Cormack referred to this. In my view, there would be substantial challenges in enforcing any such legislation, particularly with respect to vehicles travelling at speed. Currently, local authorities enforce smoke-free legislation, but they do not have the powers or the means to require moving vehicles to pull over. We would need therefore to set up a complex and probably resource-intensive enforcement regime, which would need to involve the police. These remaining questions of how to achieve effective enforcement undermine the credibility of the measures that have been proposed. If it were known that there was little chance of enforcement action, I have to ask whether individuals would comply with the law.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I am most grateful to the noble Earl. Would he accept that my amendment has been drafted in a way that allows your Lordships to vote on the principle but then allows for work to be done, hopefully cross-party, and for the Government to bring in regulations, during which some of these matters could be talked out thoroughly?
Earl Howe
I have noted the way the noble Lord’s amendment has been drafted. However, we need to be very careful before accepting it, for the reasons that I am explaining now. One of the points made about enforcement was that we could make a useful comparison with seat-belt legislation. I understand why that comparison has been made but it needs to be borne in mind that we are not comparing like with like. Seat-belt legislation is a road safety measure which is properly enforced by the police; smoking in cars is a public health matter and the police have no public health role or functions. That is part of the reason that the issue is so complex. Before launching into the kind of amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, invites us to accept, we need to take stock of these questions. There is no point in putting something on the statute book if it is impractical to implement.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
Can I just ask the noble Earl whether the police have a duty in respect of alcohol abuse and violence in the streets?
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
With the growing number of jurisdictions now adopting measures of the sort that are proposed in the amendment, will the Minister at least give an assurance that the department will look at the experience in countries where smoking in cars when children are present has been banned and look particularly at the way in which it is being enforced there, and by whom?
Earl Howe
I am coming in a minute to talk about consultation, which is one of the questions that my noble friend Lord Ribeiro asked, and I hope I can at least utter some words of comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, as regards his question.
I will focus for a moment on why the Government prefer to achieve behaviour change without recourse to imposing the law. We believe that our approach is making a distinct impact, both in terms of raising awareness and, more importantly, changing behaviour. There is a very simple point to be made here, which was made by my noble friend Lady Tyler. I cannot believe that any parent would want, knowingly, to expose their child or children to harm. I am convinced that smoking in family cars and the home is much more likely to be due to a simple lack of understanding among smokers about how damaging to health second-hand smoke can be. Our social marketing campaigns remind us that more than 80% of cigarette smoke is invisible. Our campaigns have used the strap-line:
“If you could see what’s really there you wouldn’t smoke”.
That is why we are focusing our efforts on raising awareness of the harm caused and on encouraging smokers to modify their smoking behaviour.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to pregnant women and whether we would regulate to protect them. I understand of course how vulnerable the child is when still in the womb, and the noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of how harmful second-hand smoke can be, especially for people with respiratory conditions such as asthma.
Baroness Hughes of Stretford
Does the Minister not agree that the impact of the legislation prohibiting smoking in public places, to protect the public and people working in common areas, had a much greater and more immediate impact than all the public awareness work that was done before then?
Earl Howe
I am the first to say that legislation passed by the previous Administration has had a marked and profound effect and has been widely welcomed. However, we are now dealing with something that we know can be influenced by public marketing campaigns. I shall mention how effective those have been in a moment.
With regard to pregnant women, there is a need to encourage everybody to be aware of the risks to health from second-hand smoke. We are achieving high levels of awareness as well as changing attitudes and behaviours. Almost three-quarters of those surveyed said that our campaigns had made them realise that smoking out of an open door or window was not enough to protect children from second-hand smoke. More than a third of those who saw the adverts reported that they had taken action to reduce their children’s exposure to second-hand smoke after seeing them. Those results emerged from the evaluation of last year’s campaign and the campaign that we ran in 2012.
I have to say that I am slightly surprised to hear how strongly the Opposition feel about creating legislation to end smoking in cars, because that is at odds with the position that they took on this issue when in government. The 2010 tobacco control strategy included commitments on smoking in cars that align entirely with my Government’s current approach. That strategy said:
“By increasing the level of awareness of the harms of secondhand smoke, particularly to children, we will encourage people to voluntarily make their homes and private cars completely smokefree”.
That is the stance that the party opposite took when in government and, to pay a little tribute to them, we have followed their lead. Your Lordships will recognise that there is a long way to go. Achieving behaviour change in public health takes time but we are heading in the right direction and the key is maintaining the momentum we are generating.
That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government will run another smoke-free homes and cars campaign this year, as explained in my letter to noble Lords earlier this week. We are finalising the details with colleagues in Public Health England, but our intention is that the campaign will take place in the spring. In addition to a mix of TV and digital advertising, we will work with local and commercial partners to spread the message through their networks. The campaign will be designed to maximise the potential of social media in making our messages clear and accessible to as many people as possible. I hope that that serves to reassure your Lordships that the Government are working hard to make progress in this important area. Our approach is to change smoking behaviour in both the home and family car.
In addition to the campaign activity, we will look at what more we might do to speed up the pace of change. Some local authorities are taking forward excellent work with their local communities to promote not only smoke-free homes and cars but also smoke-free environments such as playgrounds. Working with Public Health England, we will encourage more of this good practice to denormalise smoking, particularly in settings where children are present. I have asked Public Health England to look at what more we can do to spread this good practice.
This year’s smoke-free homes and cars campaign will be the Government’s third successive one, as I mentioned. At its conclusion, we will undertake a complete analysis of the progress that we have made through the campaigns. At that point the Government will give careful consideration to whether our action has had a meaningful impact in reducing smoking in cars carrying children. If health Ministers are not satisfied with the progress made, we will give serious consideration to what more can be done. I can tell my noble friend Lord Ribeiro that we will, if need be, conduct a public consultation so that we can understand how others feel about this issue, and to enable us to consider further the practicality and likely effectiveness of other measures to tackle smoking in cars carrying children, including legislative measures. I do not rule out legislation if our current course does not deliver the desired effect.
The Government take this matter extremely seriously, particularly the issue of reducing the uptake of smoking by young people. We have tabled the amendment today on standardised packaging. We intend to make proxy purchasing of tobacco an offence and prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes to people under 18. If the Government are not satisfied with progress after this year’s smoke-free homes and cars campaign, we will give serious consideration to what more could be done, including a public consultation. I hope that that indicates our seriousness of purpose.
On the amendments that have been tabled by the Opposition I repeat what I said in Grand Committee. If we cannot credibly enforce the law, the law loses credibility. I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter. I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to work with all interested parties to protect children from second-hand smoke. I hope that in the light of the assurances that I have given that the noble Lord will not press his amendment on that topic.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Protection of Children’s health: offence of smoking in a private vehicle
The Secretary of State may bring forward regulations making it an offence for any person who drives a private vehicle to fail to prevent smoking in the vehicle when a child or children are present.”
“Welfare of children: housing benefit
(1) The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2006 are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation B13 (determination of maximum rent (social sector)), inserted by regulation 5 of the Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2012—
(a) in paragraph (5), at beginning insert “Subject to paragraph (5A)”; and(b) after paragraph (5) insert—“(5A) The relevant authority shall make a determination that the restriction to one bedroom under paragraph (5) does not apply if it is in the interests of the welfare of a child or the children living in the dwelling to make such a determination.””
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment is about the impact of the bedroom tax on children. I refer noble Lords to my housing association interests recorded in the register.
This simple amendment would allow local authorities to put the welfare of the child first when assessing the appropriate occupancy level in a home. Many aspects of the bedroom tax are unfair and unjust, and we have raised them repeatedly in this House. This amendment picks on one simple theme which has quite rightly dominated our consideration of the Bill so far: that the interests and the welfare of the child should always come first. This issue has united us around the Chamber, and I hope that noble Lords will support the continuation of this principle, reflected in this amendment.
We already know that the bedroom tax hits families hard. The chief executive of the National Housing Federation has described the policy as,
“an unfair, ill-planned disaster that is hurting our poorest families”.
It has resulted in an estimated 150,000 families with children being hit so far, forced out of their homes or pushed deeper into poverty and debt. We know from consistent research that children who are forced to move home, away from settled communities and their schooling, suffer health problems and have poorer educational outcomes. Meanwhile, families who stay put suffer an average loss of income of £14 a week, with much higher losses for many, impacting on their ability to feed and clothe their children.
The bedroom tax also has a disproportionate impact on disabled adults and children. Housing association studies have shown that a significant proportion of those affected are either disabled themselves or care for someone who is disabled. Many of them live in homes with adaptations, making it difficult and expensive to move. Others use their spare room for bulky medical equipment or facilities for visiting carers.
There are other adverse welfare implications of the bedroom tax. Recently, there was publicity for the very sad case of the Hollow family, whose 11 year-old son, Caleb, died in a car crash. After a year, the family were told that they had to move to a smaller property, causing added distress to Caleb’s siblings, who were still grieving for their lost brother and who now face the further disruption of a house move or a slide into poverty.
There is also the ongoing issue of the impact on foster carers. When we debated it in Committee, we welcomed the Government’s concession to allow one additional room in their home as long as they had registered as a foster carer or fostered a child within the previous 12 months. However, the reforms still apply to foster carers who have two or three bedrooms for fostered children. Foster carers could be deterred from providing foster care for more than one child at a time, so that more children would be more likely to be separated from their siblings. Given that there is already a shortage of foster carers in the UK, these reforms are likely to mean fewer new recruits coming forward and children’s well-being suffering as a result.
The application of these policies has seen local authorities and housing associations being put in an impossible position, trying to minimise the impact of badly designed policies on local people. As we know, there is often a mismatch in accommodation so that there are simply not enough smaller units even if tenants wish to move.
Meanwhile, under this Government, housing completions are at their lowest peacetime level since the 1920s. Local authorities find themselves trapped trying to implement an unworkable policy with little flexibility. Quite often, their only solution for tenants who are unable to downsize is to move them into the private rented sector, with all the additional housing benefit costs and the poorer standards that this entails.
The Government’s main response so far to the increasing number of tales of poverty and distress has been to set up the discretionary fund to support the most vulnerable families. However, alarmingly, the Local Government Association has reported a dramatic increase in the number of people requesting emergency financial help, with 81% of councils experiencing a sharp increase in the number of applications to the discretionary housing payments scheme, most of which are being made to stop people losing their homes. This demand is so great that councils report it is outstripping the money made available by the DWP, forcing them to make cuts to services in other areas. Anyway, these funds are, by their very nature, temporary, require regular reapplications and provide no ongoing stability for the families concerned. The Government have also issued guidance to local authorities on the application of the rules concerning children’s disability but again they have no obligation in law and the Minister will know that children’s charities remain concerned about the provisions and continue to challenge them.
We believe that our amendment gives local authorities the flexibility they need, based on their local knowledge and their local circumstances, to operate the bedroom tax rules to put the welfare and the interests of the child first. We believe that this would be welcomed by all those trying to implement this unwieldy and unjust policy. It would allow them to make an informed judgment of the options available to individual families in their local area to avoid some of the perverse outcomes that arise from the rules and to guarantee that the interests of the child are safeguarded. We believe that this is a simple but important amendment, in keeping with the spirit of the remainder of the Bill, and I urge noble Lords to support it.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords I support Amendment 57BC, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I have added my name. She eloquently set out the case for the amendment and I will not repeat her comprehensive and cogent arguments. I have no doubt that the Government will regard the amendment as too wide-ranging. It provides for a determination setting aside the bedroom tax, potentially for a very large number of families. For a considerable number of families a move into new and smaller accommodation will be contrary to the interests and the welfare of the child. At the lower level of harms—if one can call them lower level—a house move may involve the children having to change school at the same time as they move home. Other children will move away from a grandparent or somebody else who looks after them when their parents are working. These sorts of changes could have very serious consequences for very sensitive children—not necessarily just disabled ones. At its most serious, a move may deprive a family of the basic space they need in order to continue managing a severely disabled child, or indeed an adult, in the family and therefore keeping the family intact. I want to focus on this to avoid duplication.
We know that families with a disabled child have been disproportionately disadvantaged by the bedroom tax, although the Government accept and have made changes to ensure that a disabled child should at least have a room of their own. That was certainly progress. The Minister always tells us that the discretionary housing payment is the answer to all possible problems. It will no doubt help many families with a short-term problem, if they are able to move into smaller accommodation—that is a big if—without serious consequences for a child or for the family as a whole, but where there is a short delay before the move can take place. I guess that would work pretty well. I accept that discretionary housing payments can be a helpful safety net for some people in the short term. That is how I think I see it working.
Lord Storey
My Lords, obviously we should be supporting any family in the situation described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Meacher. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, rightly pointed to the support that can be received from the discretionary housing subsidy. What I do not understand is why, for example, in my local council in Liverpool, last year £337,000 of government discretionary housing payments were left unspent and returned. The sad thing is that, in every year since 2001-02, a large sum of money has been returned.
I do not understand why the Local Government Association is telling the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that demand is outstripping provision when currently, after six months, Labour councils have spent only 29% of the allowance. In 2012-13, in England as a whole 37% of discretionary housing subsidy was left unspent. Should we not encourage those councils to use that money to do the same things that both noble Baronesses have suggested? If there is money available, it must be used for that. It is a disgrace, when children are in difficult situations—whether they need support because of physical handicap or whether they are in appalling conditions and need that support—to leave 37% of that money unspent across the whole of England.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, as of August 2013, there were more than 235,000 children—nearly a quarter of a million children—living in households whose benefits have been cut because of the bedroom tax. We do not know how many children have had to move, disrupting their schooling—a point that has already been made—their friendships and the social networks which enable their parents to get by with childcare and other things. When I asked the Minister earlier today about the implications of this for the Government’s child poverty strategy, I did not get a direct answer. Inevitably, these families are being pushed further into poverty; there are no two ways about it.
There have been a number of reports in newspapers about the struggles that many families face trying to get by. I will not read all of them but simply read from the initial comments from the UN special rapporteur on adequate housing, who put the case very well. She said:
“The right to housing is not about a roof anywhere, at any cost, without any social ties. It is not about reshuffling people according to a snapshot of the number of bedrooms at a given night. It is about enabling environments for people to maintain their family and community bonds, their local schools, work places and health services allowing them to exercise all other rights, like education, work, food or health”.
She continued:
“Of the many testimonies I have heard, let me say that I have been deeply touched by persons with physical and mental disabilities who have felt targeted instead of protected; of the grandmothers who are carers of their children and grandchildren but are now feeling they are forced to move away from their life-long homes due to a spare bedroom or to run the risk of facing arrears; of the single parents who will not have space for their children when they come to visit; of the many people who are increasingly having to choose between food and paying the penalty. Those who are impacted by this policy were not necessarily the most vulnerable a few months ago, but they were on the margins, facing fragility and housing stress, with little extra income to respond to this situation and already barely coping with their expenses”.
The amendment will not solve the problem, but it will go some way to alleviate the problems that those families face. Families are really struggling as a result of this measure, and I hope that we can support the amendment to do something for some of those very vulnerable children.
Lord Martin of Springburn (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I agree with everything that has been said. There is often criticism in my native city of Glasgow that the housing estates are too big, but those of us who know those housing estates know that there are excellent communities within them. In fact, those of us who have lived in big cities think of them not as a big city but as a collection of villages and communities. Many of the housing estates that I know of and are excellent were built just after the war, when the soldiers came home from the forces. The families were regarded as big. I came from a family of five living in a tenement, and in those days that was a small family—there were families of eight or nine.
Noble Lords are right to say that there can be a big impact on children if they have to move away from the communities that they enjoy. Most of us have happy memories of the childhood communities we lived in and the support of the extended families who were there. We could end up taking young children out of their school, as has already been stated, and away from their community facilities into a strange area.
I go back to where I was raised in the city of Glasgow. If a family is in an underoccupied house, that can mean that the house has a garden and a back and front door, which is regarded as significant for a family. To go to the proper size of house that the Government suggest could mean that they are forced to take a tenement flat. It has a big impact on a young person to go from a house with a garden to a tenement flat.
When I have spoken to the Minister, he has been very courteous to me and told me that he will give me a reply on this matter, but he has always mentioned the waiting lists and how long they are. The implication is that, if you have a long waiting list, you will fill the vacant accommodation. That is not necessarily the case. Anyone who has been a constituency MP or a councillor will know that people will come to you to say, “I’ve been on the waiting list for 10 or 12 years”, but when you say, “I can get you a house tomorrow”, they say, “Oh, but I’m not taking a house in this area or that area; I want this particular area”. Those who are on the waiting list exercise a great element of choice.
I personally have no housing problem either in London or in Glasgow, but I dare say that, legally, there would be nothing to stop me going to the local housing association in Westminster and saying, “I want to put my name on the waiting list”. By the same token, I could do that in Glasgow. Being on a waiting list does not mean that the person on the list is in need. I do not think that the waiting list is necessarily the best measure to use when saying that we can solve the problems caused by people being forced out of their so-called underoccupied houses.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I think that the Minister has a choice when he responds to the amendment, which was so effectively moved by my noble friend. He can say either that children of a certain group—disabled children, children in poverty or whatever—are exempt from the application of the bedroom tax to the tenancy, or he can say, on the contrary, we will leave it to local authorities to exercise their discretion, so that the response you get is a lottery based on where you live, and you have all the problems associated with what is effectively means testing.
The advantage of the first path is that you can perfectly easily have ways of ensuring that certain families with children do not come into the category of the bedroom tax as such. You could say that children on disability living allowance, for example, would simply be exempt, but discretionary housing payments apply to other people, which may include disabled people and so on. If that is the way which the Minister wishes to go, that would be the clean and clear way to do it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, as one would expect, this has been an interesting debate with some impassioned and important contributions, which I welcome. Let me start by reminding the House of the fiscal environment that led to this measure’s introduction. In the final year of the previous Government, borrowing had risen to £150 billion. In cash terms, over the previous 10 years, expenditure on housing benefit had nearly doubled to £24 billion. Left unreformed, annual expenditure on housing benefit would have exceeded £26 billion per year by the end of this Parliament. Nearly four years on, the range of economic indicators are showing that our policies are working and have led to the number of workless households, the number of lone-parent workless households and the number of children in workless households all being the lowest since comparable records began in 1996.
I will not spend a huge amount of time responding to the policy issues raised because we have already spent a lot of time in this House dealing with the policy as a whole. I want to deal with the issues raised by the nature and form of this particular amendment.
The Housing Benefit (Amendment) Regulations 2006 are secondary legislation, which contain detailed provisions that set out how local authorities should administer housing benefit. It is very unusual to seek to amend secondary legislation through primary legislation in this way. The amendment itself is imprecise and ambiguous, unlike the rest of Regulation B13. For example, under proposed new paragraph (5A) it is unclear what “restriction to one bedroom” or the concept of,
“in the interests of the welfare of a child”,
means in this context. Because of this, the amendment may have unintended consequences that go far beyond those desired by the noble Baroness.
The effect of the amendment is potentially to allow local authorities to determine that the removal of the spare room subsidy does not apply where the household contains children, as it is not in the interests of their welfare. So this amendment is likely to add around £160 million a year to the housing benefit bill, reducing the savings from the policy to around £330 million a year. It would extend only to the social sector and so reintroduce the inequity in treatment between housing benefit claimants that we have sought to remove with the implementation of this change. Applying the spirit of the amendment to the local housing allowance to re-establish fairness is likely to more than double the cost of making this amendment to around £460 million a year. This amendment does not deliver the intended outcome. If accepted, we do not intend to amend it and it will be sent to the other place in its current defective state.
It may be helpful if I remind noble Lords that we have already taken account of the interests and welfare of children in developing this policy. In March, we amended the regulations to allow an additional bedroom for foster and kinship carers. We have also made £5 million of discretionary housing payment funding available specifically for foster carers who require further additional rooms to allow them to foster two or more children, including groups of siblings. The discretionary housing payment data for the first six months indicate that foster carers are applying for and receiving payments, as intended. In March, we also issued guidance to local authorities indicating that they should allow an additional bedroom for disabled children who would ordinarily be expected to share a room but are unable to do so because of their disability. This was put into a regulatory framework in October. We have provided £180 million of discretionary housing payment funding for this year, and £165 million for next year, to enable local authorities to support the most vulnerable families affected by the reforms. This funding is already meeting the need that the noble Baroness seeks to address through this amendment.
Perhaps I might pick up on two of the vital points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the costs and benefits for children who go into residential care as a result of the removal of the spare room subsidy. We have not looked at this specifically. The independent evaluation of the policy will look at the effects on families. We are not currently aware of any evidence to support the assumption that this would be an outcome of the policy.
Picking up the example that the noble Baroness raised about Mary Jane and focusing on the uncertainty that that family had with that poor girl, I am aware that some local authorities, following the introduction of the policy, have understandably taken a very cautious approach to awarding discretionary housing payments, as they assess the level of need in their area. I have instructed my officials to amend the guidance to local authorities to encourage them to make longer-term awards where the circumstances are unlikely to change. The revised guidance is being prepared and will be shared with the local authority associations in draft before being issued for the start of the financial year.
At this stage, we have not seen anything to suggest that this policy is having a detrimental impact on the welfare of children living in affected households. We are closely monitoring the effects of the policy and have commissioned an independent two-year evaluation which—among other things—will look at the effects on families. The interim findings are due to be published in spring this year.
I hope I have been clear. I have already reflected on the noble Baronesses’ amendment. I cannot undertake to reflect further between now and Third Reading. If the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, she should do so now.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I very much thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I also thank the Minister. I welcome him to this Bill for, I think, the first time. Some of us are long veterans of this Bill. We have been debating it since last June. Our focus has, perhaps, been very different from the values and priorities that the Minister has been enunciating this evening. We have been very much focused on the child welfare issues and have seen those as a priority in the progress of the Bill. We have reached quite a lot of cross-party and cross-Chamber consensus on all of that.
Once again the Minister put great emphasis on the discretionary housing payment scheme. The fact is, in ways that were never foreseen when the original bedroom tax was introduced, it has already had to be increased and increased. This very much demonstrates that the policy, as originally planned and thought out, was not working and is still not working. It is making the evaluation of the costs very difficult. Indeed, the savings that were originally envisaged are now not being met. The whole policy is being turned on its head.
In all the calculations that I have heard the Minister cite, he does not take into account some of the extra costs. Noble Lords around the Chamber have given us examples, including the whole issue of managing evictions, debt, arrears, the extra costs to local authorities of going back to people to try to collect those debts and arrears, and the more ill defined, but nevertheless very much present, extra social problems that arise from some of these issues.
I am very pleased to hear that there will be an evaluation but, in the mean time, we are trying to deal with some of the problems that exist now. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who said that some of the discretionary fund was not always being used, that, for that very reason, the discretionary fund is not always the answer to those families. It is quite traumatic to go through that means-testing process. There is also an administrative on-cost for the local authorities that are trying to administer it. This is a murky area. It is not surprising that money in and money out are not always working effectively with the administration of that scheme.
Meanwhile, we have to respect the fact that the Tory-led Local Government Association is saying that there is a problem here and that other budgets are having to be raided to cope with the surge of applications. It is not me who is saying that; it is the Local Government Association. The chair of the Local Government Association’s finance panel says:
“This will have a significant impact on local government budgets, which are already stretched to breaking point by the deepest cuts in the public sector”.
Again, those are not my words; they come from the chair of the LGA finance committee.
Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pannick
That this House regrets that the Criminal Legal Aid (General) (Amendment) Regulations 2013 restrict the availability of legal aid, advice and assistance in prison law cases (SI 2013/2790).
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, another week, another set of legal aid regulations to regret. These regulations will severely limit the availability of legal aid advice and assistance in prison law. I shall mention four examples of issues for which legal aid advice and assistance will no longer be available by reason of these regulations. The first is Parole Board proceedings for indeterminate sentence prisoners—ISPs—where the Secretary of State refers the case before the expiry of the minimum term for advice on a move for the prisoner to open conditions, and also where an ISP is removed from open conditions and the Minister seeks advice from the Parole Board on a return to an open prison. This will no longer be covered. The Parole Board itself said in its written evidence to an inquiry on this subject by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that because most prisoners require a period in open conditions before the Parole Board can be satisfied that they are safe to release:
“There is in consequence, a great deal at stake for prisoners at these reviews”.
The need for high standards to be applied at such hearings, in the interests of the prisoner and in the public interest, is obvious, and because of the impossibility of prisoners representing themselves effectively at such hearings and problems such as how to manage a prisoner cross-examining a professional witness giving evidence about the prisoner’s conduct in prison, the Parole Board told the Joint Committee in its written evidence that it believed the proposal to remove legal aid,
“is very likely to impede our attempts to deal with cases fairly, promptly and effectively”.
It is very surprising that the Secretary of State should have proceeded with the changes despite the concerns expressed by the Parole Board.
The second example of decisions which will be excluded from legal aid is decisions to place or keep a prisoner in Category A—that is, prisoners assessed to be a high security risk—which of course affects prison conditions. A third excluded category is the allocation of places in mother and baby units. Vulnerable women will be denied access to legal advice on whether they should be separated from their babies. A fourth example is decisions on removal from association—that is, segregation decisions. One could give many more examples.
What are the justifications offered by the Secretary of State for denying legal advice and assistance in such important matters, even if all other eligibility criteria are satisfied? The main answer given by Mr Grayling, the Secretary of State for Justice, in his oral evidence to the House of Commons Justice Select Committee on 3 July 2013 is that the difference between him and his critics was “ideological”—his word. Indeed, he used that word three times in as many minutes in response to questions on this matter. The report of the evidence is published as HC 91. Mr Grayling told the Justice Committee:
“I do not believe that prisoners in jail should have the right to access legal aid to debate which prison they are put in”.
He went on to say that they should not have the right to legal aid to raise other questions about their treatment, with limited exceptions.
This is to reverse 35 years of progress in the approach adopted by the legal system to the treatment of prisoners. The modern era of prison law began in 1978 when the Court of Appeal required fair disciplinary proceedings for those alleged to be involved in the Hull prison riots. Since that decision, our courts have repeatedly made it clear that administrative decisions in prison must comply with basic standards of legality, procedural fairness and rationality.
The application of legal standards to decision-making within prisons has immeasurably improved the quality of those decisions and ensured greater transparency and accountability. No one, with the possible exception of the Secretary of State for Justice, could doubt the public benefits in enabling prisoners to hold prison authorities to basic standards of legality and fairness or the indispensable contribution which has been made in this respect by legal aid. That a Secretary of State, and indeed a Secretary of State for Justice, should now, for so-called ideological reasons, wish to reverse such developments is very much a matter for regret.
Mr Grayling’s second point is that legal aid is not needed because the internal prison complaints system and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will provide redress where appropriate. Without legal assistance a prisoner is simply not going to be able to make his or her points effectively and speedily by reference to the applicable legal requirements. Unhappily, many prisoners lack basic skills of literacy or suffer from other problems which impede their ability to present an effective grievance. Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, Mr Nick Hardwick CBE, echoed these concerns in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as recorded in paragraph 174 of the Committee’s seventh report.
As the Law Society has pointed out in its helpful briefing on this Motion, at present many complaints are simply, effectively and speedily resolved by a solicitor’s letter setting out the legal position to the person taking the decision. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman can only make recommendations and provides a much slower method of seeking redress than a solicitor’s letter. The ombudsman, Mr Nigel Newcomen CBE, told the Joint Committee on Human Rights that he was concerned about the Government’s proposals, in particular because his office was unable to cope with the expected increase in workload.
These regulations will not even save public money. The cost of maintaining legal aid in ISP cases before the Parole Board, for example, is minimal, and the cost of ISPs remaining unjustifiably in closed conditions when they could safely be allowed to move to open conditions is high. The Howard League for Penal Reform has pointed out that the Ministry of Justice has put the cost of dealing with each complaint to the ombudsman at £830, which is more than three times the £220 fixed fee for a solicitor doing this work under the legal aid arrangements.
In the Supreme Court last April, in the case of Osborn v the Parole Board, reported in volume 3 of the 2013 Weekly Law Reports page 1020, paragraph 72, Lord Reed stated for the court that,
“procedures which involve an immediate cost but contribute to better decision-making are in reality less costly than they may appear”.
I suggest that the Minister conveys the suggestion to the Secretary of State for Justice that the words of wisdom of Lord Reed should be displayed on Mr Grayling’s desk in very large letters.
These regulations will do enormous damage to the rule of law in prisons and there is no justification for them. I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I echo everything that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I, too, regret that the Government are taking this course and regret profoundly what was said by the Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Grayling, in describing the differences between those who supported the maintenance of legal aid and those who were agin it. It is as though it is not enough to go to prison and lose your liberty, and experience the deprivations that we know imprisonment means, so we are looking for other ways to punish.
I will speak specifically about women. As we in this House all know, women in prison are very largely those who have experienced abuse or domestic violence. They are often in prison because of serious social problems, they have mental health problems, and often have problems of addiction. The panoply of problems that they have do not make them people who will be well able to represent themselves in trying to get their rights in prison.
I will mention the issue of mother and baby units. In the past I have been involved in such cases, where a woman seeks to prepare for an application to have her baby remain with her, and has to secure supportive evidence, expert reports, and so on. It is impossible for a woman to do that without the help of a solicitor. Representations have to be made in relation to any refusal to offer a woman a place in a mother and baby unit, and I can assure noble Lords that that is sometimes done—and not done—for the best of reasons.
Women sometimes make applications for temporary release when something disastrous is happening at home with other children; they seek a temporary licence so that they can spend time at home. Many female prisoners are their children’s primary carer. We know that 55% of women in prison have a child under 16 and wish to make use of that release on temporary licence when they have emergencies at home. I know from experience that the application of the release on temporary licence policy is frequently misapplied by prisons, and women who are eligible are incorrectly refused. Legal help is vital to them for making their application, making representations, drawing on supportive evidence, and so on, but it is no longer available.
Disabled prisoners often have real problems about the suitability of their accommodation or other services they need, and need legal help to acquire them. Mentally ill prisoners do not get legal help to deal with many of the attendant matters that go along with convincing the authorities of the seriousness of their problems, whether that is on the depressive scale or as regards behaviours that clearly show disturbance, but which often bring them into dispute with the authorities in the prison. There are often arguments about the capacity of such women. They present with difficult and challenging behaviour which is often met with a strong disciplinary response from the prison so that they are awarded extra days as punishments, when in fact mental health is the problem. As extended prisoners, women often have the date of release set further and further away because of their behaviour, but that behaviour is due to their mental ill health.
In those sorts of cases you need to have the representation of someone who is legally qualified to help take the appropriate course and find the appropriate expertise to support applications. The Government’s response is that prisoners should use the internal complaints procedures—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described the inadequacy of that. The process of appealing to the ombudsman is often slow and does not give the remedy that is sought. Add to all that the poor educational attainment of most women in prison and the situation is hopeless.
Before this debate a Member of this House said to me, “Are you speaking in the legal aid debate?”, to which I replied, “Yes”. He said, “You know it’s hopeless”. My response to that was that it may be hopeless, but I hope that by having this debate some members of the Government will feel shame. I am speaking of the most vulnerable today. I hope that a feeling of shame will enter into discussions among the Government and between the coalition partners about the impact of this on the lives of some of the most fragile people in our society.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and both of us took part in the evidence session with the right honourable Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. That was just at the moment when the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who has the misfortune to have to reply to this debate, was no longer able to be with us because he had been told that he was about to become a Minister. Therefore tonight we will have an excellent example of the poacher who has now turned gamekeeper, as it were, for Her Majesty’s Government. I will make one point that I put to Mr Grayling, which I do not think he answered in a very satisfactory way.
If the Government stick to their regulations, as they will, the consequence will be that more cases will go to Strasbourg for want of effective domestic remedies in this country. That is not something we should want; it is much better that effective remedies are provided in this country. Why do I say that? I have the cases of Sidney Golder and Reuben Silver in mind. Sidney Golder, many years ago, was a prisoner who thought that he had been defamed by a member of the Prison Service, and he wanted to go to a solicitor to see whether he could sue for libel. The Home Office said, “Sorry—you can’t go to a solicitor while you’re a prisoner”, so Mr Golder had to go to Strasbourg. The Strasbourg court said, years and years ago, “There must be an effective domestic remedy. Access to justice is a fundamental right, and prisoners are entitled to that right”. Therefore Golder led to reform of the prison rules, or was meant to do so. I was working in the Home Office with Roy Jenkins on the subject, and I am sorry to say that Home Office officials did not do as they were instructed, so that led to the case of Mr Silver.
Reuben Silver was an Orthodox Jew, and he wanted to know whether the food he was receiving in prison was kosher. He wrote a letter to the editor of the Jewish Chronicle marked “not for publication”. It was stopped on the ground that you must not write to the press. He also wrote to the Chief Rabbi, but was prevented from sending that letter on the ground that he had not known the Chief Rabbi before he became a prisoner, under the rule that said that you had to know the person beforehand. Therefore Mr Silver was one of my seven prisoner clients who went to the Strasbourg court complaining of the absence of a domestic remedy. The Strasbourg court had no difficulty in finding that the prison ombudsman could not provide and had not provided an effective remedy, and the same would be true today.
Those cases are not just routine internal disciplinary matters. I lost another case called Boyle and Rice in which they complained about being moved from one place to another and not having artwork, and so on. That is the kind of case which Mr Grayling is perfectly right to say should be dealt with by the ombudsman system. However, there are other, grosser, cases where that is not so. When I put this to Mr Grayling in evidence his reply was, “Well, I’m sure that in that sort of case you can find barristers who do no-win, no-fee cases”. That is no answer; for a prisoner to have to find such a barrister and to negotiate with the clerk and all the rest of it is patently absurd. One overwhelming reason to regret what has happened is that it will lead inevitably to more cases going to Strasbourg, which is not in the interests of anybody.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I suppose that one should be grateful for small mercies and welcome what is provided for in Regulation 4(2) and (3): advice and assistance for issues relating to the release by the Secretary of State or for consideration for release by the Parole Board, and for proceedings that involve the determination of a criminal charge. However, they are very small mercies: these provisions were, of course, unavoidable. They are essential to protect against the risk of challenge by prisoners whose basic rights under Articles 5 and 6 of the convention were being infringed.
The point is this: there are very real grounds for concern as to what is being left out, a list of which is set out in paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum. For reasons of time, I will not go over the details, but one is bound to ask how robust the system of complaints is on which there is so much emphasis and to draw attention—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has done—to the effect of the absence of legal advice, which always focuses the issue more directly and saves money by directing attention to where the problem really lies.
The other major gap is that to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has drawn attention; namely, the position of the vulnerable, of whom there are so many, both male and female, in prisons and in young offender institutions too—for example, those with language or learning difficulties. I am struck by one of the provisions in paragraph 9.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which tells us that a note has been issued for distribution to prisoners to explain the changes to the system—but what provision is being made for those who cannot read or who do not speak English? Can we really be confident that steps are being taken to deal with their needs and give them the advice they need?
At the heart of this is something else, which, I suggest, is profoundly worrying: the increasing tendency to treat prisoners as some kind of an underclass. They are to be regarded as having surrendered their right, when they go into custody, to be treated like everyone else, except to the extent necessary to serve their sentence. We are all familiar with the debate about prisoner voting; but the effect of denying them the vote is really quite trivial when compared with what these changes will mean for many who are in a position that puts them at such an obvious disadvantage when compared with everyone else, having been locked up by the state.
Paragraph 7.4 of the memorandum states that the amendments aim to target limited public resources at the cases that really justify it. So far so good; but then there are the words,
“to ensure that the public can have confidence in the scheme”.
Those really are weasel words. What is the basis for that claim? Who are the public? What do they know about the effect of all these provisions on prison law? What about the prisoners, their wives, parents or children? What about the many organisations and individuals who really do care about the mistreatment of prisoners or their rehabilitation?
Some years ago Justice Breyer of the US Supreme Court observed in a lecture in London that it is not the job of judges to be popular. That is why we have judges who are not elected. If you want to be popular, you have to win votes: you must appeal to the majority. Of course, one way of doing that is to devalue the rights of the minority. When it comes to the use of resources, there is a temptation: they can be diminished or left to one side because the majority can be relied upon not to care about them and not to object. That is all about winning the confidence of the majority, which is what this sentence really refers to. It is not difficult to imagine what, in the wrong hands, this may eventually lead to. The line of thinking, therefore—the political philosophy that seems to underlie these proposals—is perhaps even more worrying than all the details which, in themselves, are so troubling. I join others in expressing my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for bringing this Motion before the House.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I, too, regret very much these legal aid regulations in relation to prisons. The amount concerned is apparently about £4 million. The cost of each lawyer to give advice or representation is a fixed fee of £220. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—who, in my view, has done the House a great favour by bringing this issue before noble Lords—has already said, that is achieved very often by a letter that resolves the problem.
I received a very interesting and useful e-mail from a committee member of the Young Legal Aid Lawyers, which is a group of students, lawyers and barristers committed to practising areas of law traditionally funded by legal aid, which includes prison law. They raised three points that I want to make to the House, which identify three vulnerable groups. They have been referred to already, so I hope that the House will forgive me for referring to them again.
One group of young people—they are children—have advocates from Barnardo’s, which is a step forward. As far as I know, however, they are not lawyers and do not provide that specialised help which, for instance, is needed in the resettlement of young people who come out of secure accommodation or youth prison. Those young lawyers are of course experts in dealing with these problems.
The second group is mothers and babies. The issue of mothers and babies has been raised already, but let me take a different point. As a former family judge, it is the baby that I worry about. There is no one to speak for the baby; he or she is removed from the mother, with all the emotional harm that is done to a baby in those circumstances, even if that mother and baby are reunited at a later stage. In that instance, a lawyer can help to organise it so that the mother and baby remain together.
The third group that has already been referred to is that of vulnerable adults. I will make two points. First, in our prisons there is a very high percentage of people with mental health problems. Some have single mental health problems; many have multiple problems. There is also no shortage of people without education and with learning disabilities. How on earth are they to cope with putting forward whatever is the issue that needs to be put forward if they do not have someone to help them? I doubt very much whether the internal arrangements or even the ombudsman will meet the specialised help which, for a very minor cost to the public, these lawyers can give. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests, it is ideological, the money does not matter; but I suspect that for the rest of the Government money matters very much. It is not very much money and it saves a great deal. Therefore I urge not just the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, but the Government generally, to rethink the balance of saving money and the damage caused by taking away this facility and the lack of appropriate legal advice and representation that to me, as a former judge, is a denial of access to justice.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I, too, rise to support this Motion and also, in part, to atone for my own part as Treasury Counsel 30 years or more ago, when I did all that I could to obstruct the recognition of prisoners’ rights—sometimes successfully in the short term, although generally not in the longer term. Preparing for the debate tonight has involved me in a wander down memory lane. In 1981, in a case called Payne against the then chairman of the Parole Board, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I succeeded in persuading the Court of Appeal under Lord Denning that it was quite unnecessary to give prisoners any reasons whatever as to why their parole applications had been refused. In 1984, in a case called King, I persuaded the Court of Appeal that prison governors’ disciplinary proceedings were wholly immune from judicial review, lest their authority be undermined.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, given the current clamour for repentance in some quarters, it is a real pleasure to follow a sinner who hath repented. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, makes an extremely powerful point in reminding us that these are cases in which the merits test has been passed. Therefore, the Government are deliberately excluding from access to litigation people who have been advised that they have merit in their case. That is a matter of real concern.
I, too, applaud the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for moving this Motion of Regret—the third Motion of Regret, or similar, in a run of these legal aid regulations. This fact, in my view, should cause Ministers and the Government Front Bench real concern. There is more or less united opposition to these regulations among the informed. I would have thought that that evidence was as good as one could wish for.
I also want to pick up a point on mental health made by the noble and learned Baroness, with all her experience of the judiciary. It is often a matter of pure chance whether a child or adult with a serious multiple mental health history ends up in prison or in hospital. It may depend on where they were standing when a florid episode took place, whether there was a sympathetic or an unsympathetic police officer present or whether or not their family was there to protect them. It is purely because of a small event that one person may now be in a hospital, with all the care that a hospital provides, and the capacity to obtain legal aid for important litigation that may establish the course of the rest of their lives, and another may be in prison, where, apparently, they are to be deprived of access to that litigation. That seems to me profoundly unjust.
The third and final point I will mention—trying not to take up too much of your Lordships’ time this evening—relates to children and young people and the work of the Howard League for Penal Reform, of which I was president but am no longer. On 13 December last, the Joint Committee on Human Rights stated that it was “disappointed” that the Government had pursued the removal of matters from legal aid relating to young people and, in particular, resettlement cases. The committee said:
“The issues concerning young people may involve matters of housing law, social care law and public law of such complexity that they require access to legal advice and assistance in order to investigate and formulate their case”.
There are, of course, some very good lawyers in this House, but there is not a lawyer in this House who would not be challenged by some of these cases. The Howard League has a legal team that has helped literally hundreds of children make fresh starts and secure long-term support on statutory funding. The result has often been to allow them to be released safely, having served the shortest appropriate time in prison. They have often been able to move on not just to lives which are free of crime but to lives which are positive in a much broader sense.
In turn, this has led not only to justice on their part but has saved the taxpayer a huge amount of money. It is extremely expensive keeping young people locked up. Therefore, I say to my noble friend the Minister that I doubt very much that any robust cost-benefit analysis has been done on removing legal aid from children in custody rather than allowing them the legal aid which the expert legal team at the Howard League—and, of course, elsewhere—has utilised to bring benefit to those children’s lives.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the statements that have been made by so many of your Lordships universally condemning these regulations and identifying the specifics of why they are wrong in principle and wrong in fact.
I have not been someone who has objected to any legal aid cut. I have been concerned about some but, as a member of a Government who themselves had to look at legal aid issues, that was not the concern. However, what particularly concerns me about these regulations is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made early in his contribution when he referred to the reasons given by the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, for making this change—said to be ideological.
While there may be that ideology so far as the Lord Chancellor is concerned, noble and learned Lords have already made it plain why it is legally wrong: because prisoners have rights. Therefore, if the justification is that, ideologically, they should not have rights, he is saying that they should be in the same position as the people in the black holes of Guantanamo.
I am still shocked by the piece that the Lord Chancellor wrote in the Daily Mail on 11 September 2013, in which he described judicial review, not once but twice, as,
“a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners”.
That is completely untrue, of course. I do not think that the Daily Mail would be regarded as a left-wing campaigner, yet it used judicial review to challenge the Leveson inquiry. Much as I admire it, I do not think that the Countryside Alliance, when it brought a judicial review against hunting, would have regarded itself as a left-wing campaigner.
It is deeply worrying that that is the ideology that underlies these changes. It would be deeply worrying if it came from anybody, but coming from a Lord Chancellor—a Secretary of State for Justice—it is a matter of the gravest regret, which is why I am very happy to support the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is wrong for these reasons. It is wrong because legal aid is about justice, not about ideology. It should be about ensuring that people can vindicate their rights where properly those rights deserve to be vindicated. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor—the Secretary of State—is ideologically unsound and also legally wrong.
This measure is, I regret to say, shabby, and a political and populist move which does no credit at all to a Government. Equally, it does no good, as noble and learned Lords and noble Lords have pointed out, in terms of cutting the budget. I very much hope that the noble Lord—and I, for one, welcome him to his place on the ministerial Bench—will do his best to make sure that that point is driven home within the Ministry of Justice and that the Secretary of State recognises eventually that this sort of move, which he regards as ideological, is in fact utterly to be regretted.
Baroness Stern (CB)
My Lords, my memory of the gradual application of the rule of law in prisons also goes back a long way—as far back as that of my repentant noble and learned friend, whom I have the great honour to be sitting next to and of whom my opinion has warmed considerably as the years have gone by.
I recollect the days when prisoners were found guilty of disciplinary offences and sentenced to lose many days of remission without being heard or allowed to defend themselves. I remember a riot at Wormwood Scrubs prison in which 54 prisoners and 11 prison officers were injured. It was hushed up. The full facts emerged after two and a half years and no one was ever held to account. I am sure that there would be no support in 2014 for the rule of law not being maintained in prisons. The arrival of lawfulness improved immeasurably the working conditions of staff, the treatment of prisoners and the safety of the environment in which they both lived. My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf was right to say in his report on the Strangeways riot in 1991 that,
“the system of justice which has put a person in prison cannot end at the prison doors”.
Therefore, within this context, since this is a Motion of Regret, I regret very much that the framework of lawfulness in which prisons operate is to be reduced. I understand the argument about cost, but these measures will certainly save no money at all, and they will shrink one of the elements that keep prisons fairly safe and fairly manageable—that is, the provision of access to a remedy when a decision seems arbitrary and unjust.
Perhaps I may mention one specific situation so that it may be on the record. I refer to prisoners who are held in extreme conditions, such as in the case quoted by the Chief Inspector of Prisons when he gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It concerned a woman with severe mental health problems in Bronzefield prison who was held for five years in conditions that amounted, in his view, to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. In future, such a woman seems very unlikely to be able to get legal aid to challenge her conditions and her placement. Women who have their babies taken away have already been mentioned, and I endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.
I end by endorsing the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the excellent work done by the Howard League and the Prisoners’ Advice Service. Neither of those specialist legal aid prison law firms will be able to continue under these arrangements, and that, too, is a matter for profound regret.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Pannick on bringing his regret Motion before this House. I do not dissent in any way from what he said. He has outlined why this House should regret the restrictions being imposed on legal aid, advice and assistance in prison law cases with his usual clarity and skill. I want to focus instead on the Government’s justification for those restrictions, which I believe to be deeply flawed. I have to admit to serious alarm when I saw that the justification was the internal prisons complaints system, about which, when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I had frequent cause to complain. I was equally alarmed when I saw that the tough Mr Grayling had said in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights:
“I struggle personally to believe that it is sensible to have a system where we have prisoners able to access the courts, and access public funds, to argue that they should be detained in a different prison”,
to which the Joint Committee responded:
“What is strikingly strange about the Lord Chancellor’s comments about where legal aid will be allowed is that he has … ignored where common-law standards of fairness apply”.
It also said:
“We have not seen any evidence to suggest that legal aid is being abused to enable prisoners to complain about what prison they are put in”—
in other words, both drawing attention to his ignorance of the facts and suggesting that he was on a collision course with Winston Churchill’s conviction that the way in which it treats its crime and criminals is the true test of the civilisation of any country. Ideology appears to dictate his policy-making, rather than reality.
Mr Justice May, when recommending the reformation of the Inspectorate of Prisons after a break of 102 years, following widespread unease about the efficacy of the self-regulation that had been introduced by the first Prison Commissioner in 1877, recommended that the chief inspector be given statutory responsibility for the inspection of efficiency, propriety and the investigation of grievances. In the event, the investigation of grievances was denied. However, when the first prisons ombudsman was appointed in 1994 following similar unease about the internal prisons complaints system, he was not given statutory responsibility for the investigation of grievances—something for which he and his successors have fought, unsuccessfully, ever since, and a fight which I warmly support.
I was therefore interested to note that in his evidence to the Joint Committee, far from having the confidence in the complaints system held by the Lord Chancellor, my successor as chief inspector, Nick Hardwick, confirmed that,
“prisoner confidence in a complaints system was crucial to the safety of a prison”.
He added that,
“two-thirds of people who have had a complaint dealt with through the existing system do not think it has been dealt with fairly”,
and that,
“about one in 10 say they have been prevented in some way from accessing the complaints system”.
So much for advice and assistance that is equal to that being denied.
Like my noble and learned friends Lord Brown and Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if there is one group of prisoners about whom I am particularly concerned in all this, it is young offenders. For a whole variety of reasons, including immaturity and lack of trust, they tend not to use the complaints system. When I was inspecting, what worried me was that prison staff tended to interpret this lack of use of the formal complaint system as meaning that all was well when the opposite was true.
My final word to the Minister is that, in reflecting on all that has been said by noble Lords in regretting the proposed restrictions, he and the Secretary of State should reflect that this is not a stand-alone measure. Their restrictions come on top of a whole host of other cuts and deliberately tough sanctions against prisoners, and are resulting in mounting unrest. Prisoners are deprived of their liberty for a period by the courts following conviction for an offence but, in the civilised society about which Winston Churchill spoke, they are not deprived of justice. My noble and learned friend Lord Woolf observed that justice was a crucial ingredient of safety in a prison, which confirms that there is no place for ideologically imposed injustice in a civilised prison system.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, bitterly regret the need for this debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that I feel enormous sympathy for him and bitterly regret that he will have the arduous burden of responding on behalf of the Government. To turn our minds back only a few years, if we had asked any lawyer worth their salt whether it would be likely that any Government, of whatever political complexion, would bring forward regulations such as these, I think that such a suggestion would have been met with incredulity.
I totally endorse what has been said by every Member of the House who has spoken already, particularly the comments made in relation to children, women and the vulnerable. I emphasise the comments made recently by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the need to remember the backcloth against which these additional cuts must now be seen.
I shall take a moment to concentrate on the plight of women. Noble Lords will know that legal aid in family matters has been removed almost in its entirety, except in cases of domestic violence. Even there we are hearing reports from solicitors all over the country that access to legal aid for those women and individuals who are victims has been severely constrained. Some solicitors say that the drop has been 96% in some areas and 94% in others, and that there has been a real diminution right across the board. We know that women in our prisons are overrepresented in terms of vulnerability. Certainly it was my experience when I was Minister of State with responsibility for the criminal justice system. I was told in 2004 by the governor of Holloway prison—I have no reason to believe that this has changed—that 89% of women in prison had a history of domestic violence or sexual abuse prior to having offended. We have a highly vulnerable group whose rights already are constrained outside the prison estate and are having them further constrained within it. Two-thirds of children in youth offending institutions come from those same domestic violence homes. We all know that those who graduated from the youth justice estate are overrepresented in the male estate. We are dealing with the most vulnerable in our community.
I add my voice to those who have expressed a degree of shock that the Secretary of State for Justice feels able to phrase these issues in terms of ideology. I commend the Damascene-like conversion of the erstwhile Treasury devil for his change of mind and invite the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, to ask the Lord Chancellor to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, as an exemplar of what can be done when one really wishes to change, and to say that, from the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice, all of us expect more. I cannot but agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, when he says that these provisions are mischievous and misguided.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, yet again this House appears united against the Government’s proposals for legal aid. Thanks are owed not just by those of us in the House but those outside, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for moving his regret Motion and doing so in so powerful a way. Those who followed him must rank as one of the most impressive lists of dramatis personae of legal luminaries it would be possible to bring together, and we have not heard from my noble friend Lord Beecham yet.
I want to make a couple of fairly short points. At paragraph 161 on page 50 of the JCHR report, there is reference to reforms to the system of prison law that were carried out in July 2010. They were really the work of the previous Government. Indeed, they were from a time when I was privileged to be the Minister with responsibility for legal aid. What we did then was to make comparatively minor changes that we believed were appropriate. We implemented them and, dare I say, they appeared to work fairly satisfactorily. But now, yet again, our successors go much, much too far and take so much out of scope that the balance shifts. Instead of having a system that maintains the essential proposition that prisoners should have reasonable and proportionate access to legal advice and representation, we are now faced with a sort of brave new world where any legal rights prisoners enjoy are granted out of sufferance—the very bare minimum.
The approach is not what is fair and consistent with our legal traditions but rather, “What can we as the Government, the state, get away with?”. There is almost a pride in not taking a balanced view based on judgment and legal reputation. In one of his examples, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke about categorisation. The Ministry of Justice has decided to remove funding for pre-tariff reviews. He explained much better than I can the value of pre-tariff reviews for prisoners.
Recently, I spoke to a recently retired Parole Board member and a retired High Court judge who told me that not only are these reviews immensely significant in the course of a prisoner’s life but that there are huge advantages for the Parole Board and, thus, presumably for society, in having the best possible information about a prisoner so that the right judgment can be made. Such information is gained by the Parole Board having had the advice and representation before it that has been given to the prisoner. Can anything be more ridiculous than the decision to take pre-tariff reviews out of scope? As the JCHR report so rightly said:
“Categorisation engages common law rights to liberty, as it can affect the likelihood of a prisoner being released. There are also clear cost implications of a prisoner remaining in too high a category, which may mean that the Lord Chancellor’s cost-saving rationale may not be satisfied. We recommend that the Government look again at these proposals, and give full consideration to the potential for increased costs, which may affect the justification for its policy”.
Two newly appointed Ministers in the Ministry of Justice were on that JCHR, at least for a large part of its hearing into this matter, and we hope that both those Ministers will follow that paragraph and talk to their Secretary of State in those terms.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely honoured to be in this learned company and I will try not to take too much time because everything has been said.
We have been here before. I spoke in the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as did many other noble Lords. On that occasion, I mentioned the work of the CAB. But today, like others, I am much more concerned about the effect of these regulations on young people in difficulty, including asylum seekers in detention, unaccompanied minors and even young people released from prison and wishing to make a new life. These young people would normally benefit from professional legal advice at a critical stage in their lives when they are separated from their families or being made homeless at the moment of leaving prison. Specialised agencies such as the Howard League mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, have given hundreds of people not just hope but essential practical advice on restarting their lives. This kind of work, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, characterises fairness in our society. It is not charity.
I notice that the Minister has been a member of the Select Committee looking at mental capacity, so he will be more aware than most of the special problems of the mentally ill already mentioned. Many of those people are in prison through no fault of their own. I said in the legal aid debate that those with mental health problems were especially vulnerable. There were no exceptions for children nor for prisoners accepted to have a disability. A detained child unable to identify legal issues will not have the financial resources, let alone the intellectual resources, to pay for lawyers or even to frame their complaint to the prison authority, as is suggested. That is a serious point that the Minister has to answer. It would be a serious personal crisis for young people.
A case of a 12 year-old boy was mentioned to me by the Howard League. He was an unaccompanied minor who had been detained in a secure children’s home. He had behaved well, earned himself early release and had sought help with resettlement. The lawyer concerned approached social services but only then discovered through an interpreter that he had been wrongly detained in the first place and had to appeal against his sentence. None of this will happen if cases are not referred in the future and legal aid is unavailable.
Last September, there were 1,789 immigration detainees spread across the UK in removal centres and short-term holding facilities simply waiting to be removed. Many are moved from place to place and I doubt if the Minister or anyone else can keep count of how many of them are young people. I heard from a Member of Parliament last week that one young detainee, originally from his constituency, had been moved eight times. Mental health problems loom large in these situations because no one knows when they can leave or even when they can receive a hearing. Detainees depend heavily on outside advice. This may be a subject for the Immigration Bill next month, but it is surely highly relevant to the present regulations. Is it fair to exact cuts that will impinge on young people in these conditions and restrict their lives even more than at present?
It is true that the Joint Committee on Human Rights accepted that it was legitimate for the Government to introduce a residence test, as the Minister may mention, and to restrict the scope of prison law funding. But it strongly recommended that there should be more and broader exemptions from these proposals to make it less likely that they will lead to breaches of the fundamental right of effective access to justice.
What is especially unfortunate, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned, is that young people in prison had been receiving much better attention over a long period. For example, the Minister will know that in 2002 there was a court ruling that the welfare and child protection duties in the Children Act apply to children in prison just as they do to children in the community.
The amount and percentage of cuts has already been discussed. They are surely disproportionate. I shall lastly mention one piece of evidence given to the Select Committee last July. I was surprised to read that the Justice Secretary had changed his mind about equal shares in legal aid work. He told the committee he had been persuaded that competition among legal providers was more essential than advice shared equally. He said:
“That is something that the market has said to me: ‘Actually, the principle of choice is one that we regard as more important’”,
than equal shares. If the market is speaking in this way, many young people and their families are going to suffer from these regulations.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned the debate in this House last July. I looked back at that and reminded myself that the title of the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was “Effect of Cuts in Legal Aid Funding on the Justice System of England and Wales”. I think that that was a very well chosen title because the effect of the cuts is not just on individuals but on our system of justice.
I was not going to talk about whether this was a matter of ideology on the part of the Justice Secretary. I had a look at the transcript and am not sure that that was quite the exchange about ideological differences, but I am tempted to wonder whether that was an admission or a boast.
I want to say very clearly—though noble and learned Lords, and noble Lords who are not technically learned, have put it much better than I can—that for those who are convicted and sentenced by the courts, the punishment is imprisonment. The punishment should not extend to the loss of rights, whether convention rights or at common law.
A number of threads seem to run through the Government’s approach. The first is a reference to and reliance on judicial review. I do not need to comment on the paradox in that given the policy regarding judicial review. I was not aware of the Daily Mail article quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I do not think that I need to spend any time on saying how undesirable it is to rely on judicial review. But I will mention the skill that is needed, at what I shall describe as first instance, to ensure that the right points are raised and dealt with in order that there is a basis for an application for judicial review. I think that that is not a job for someone who is not trained.
Another theme which I picked up from the JCHR report is that the Justice Secretary thinks that the number of cases affected will be very small. If that is so, I do not understand why the Government do not give in gracefully. We know about the cost pressures on the MoJ. We know that the Government want to focus public resources on cases with sufficient priority to justify the use of public money and to get value for money for the taxpayer. But I know that I am not alone in this Chamber in setting justice high in my priorities as a taxpayer.
What seems to be a common theme in the responses to the Government from those who work in the sector is a mention of the “see-saw impact”—that is, cuts here meaning costs there. Concerns around mother and baby units and the cost of keeping a baby in care is one example, undermining the principles of rehabilitation and the costs associated with all that. We will all have seen and read particular cases. I shall mention one which I found very compelling—the story of a 17 year-old who was given a 36-month custodial sentence. He was studying for his A-levels at the time. With the work of solicitors, who engaged in both detailed representations and liaison with a clutch of agencies, he was granted release on temporary licence to attend college part-time and then home detention curfew, and so he lost only one year of education, not the further years which were in prospect.
Of course, there is also the cost of the loss of expertise among solicitors. I have seen, and heard about tonight, a large number of points relating to costs rather than savings. We really have not got any better, have we, at joining up and reading across budgets? I have actually been defeated—my level of energy depleted—in trying to understand the savings projected as against the knock-on costs. I hope that when the Minister—who has everyone’s sympathy in this—replies he will be able to unpack this for the House.
The third theme I picked up was the emphasis on the non-judicial complaints system. I do not see this as an either/or. There should be a good complaints system. That should then alleviate to some extent the necessity for lawyers to be involved. There should be an effective system that inspires confidence. However, there are limits to the system that we have—to the powers, to the remit, which does not extend to making recommendations to external agencies or investigating them. These concerns seem rightly to have been stressed.
We have heard, although not tonight, about ambulance chasing—if that is the right term—by some solicitors in prison, soliciting work and planting the idea in prisoners’ minds that they have real claims. However, that should not mean that proper advice, assistance and representation is not available.
I do not suppose that the MoJ has found much which it regarded as supportive or constructive in the responses to the proposed changes. The House has managed to cover quite a lot of ground, and I will end by citing a point made by the Council of Her Majesty’s Circuit Judges, which noted, according to the Howard League, that:
“The practice of prison law is so unique; its impact on the most vulnerable within society so profound; and the potential savings suggested by these reforms so limited at best, and so obscure in any event, prison law should be removed altogether from the scope of the legal aid reforms”.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, it is once again necessary for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for putting down a Motion of Regret about a set of regulations on legal aid. I also express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully tonight about the regulations and the potential damage that they will do.
I begin by citing three examples of successful cases for which legal aid was, but will no longer be, available. I am indebted to the Howard League for supplying the relevant information. The first was a mother and baby case of the kind referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. A Spanish mother, who spoke no English, was informed after sentence that her baby would be removed and placed into care because it was not known whether she would be allowed to remain with the child when she returned to Spain. Her lawyers ascertained that she would, and the decision was reversed.
In the second case, a prisoner with severe learning disabilities could not do offending behaviour courses. Experts in the prison recommended he be transferred to hospital for treatment, but nothing happened until his lawyer commissioned an independent report and persuaded the authorities to transfer him to hospital. Such a sentence case will now be out of scope.
In the third case, a 17 year-old suffering from ADHD and learning difficulties underwent psychiatric therapy in a secure training centre, but the local authority refused to respond to a request for a needs assessment under Section 17 of the Children Act until legal intervention by the Howard League. Resettlement cases of this kind will also be out of scope. I remind your Lordships that the cost of keeping such an offender in custody could be as much as £200,000 a year.
Those are but a few sample cases. The regulations which are the subject of this regret Motion are merely the latest example of this Government’s repeated assaults on the legal aid system and access to justice, pushed through by a Lord Chancellor indifferent to their effects and unheeding of the warnings from the judiciary, practitioners, and charities and voluntary organisations. Time after time the criticisms of bodies such as the Justice Select Committee, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights are brushed aside. Impact analyses are vestigial in many cases, and imperfect in most.
Such is clearly the case with the proposals we are debating tonight. Not only are the measures deeply flawed but the process is tainted. Paragraph after paragraph of the Joint Committee on Human Rights report highlights these systemic failures. After their initial consultation, the Government abandoned proposals to exclude two areas from legal aid, namely where the Parole Board considers whether to order release and in relation to the calculation of sentence when the release date is in dispute. That is welcome, but as paragraph 154 of the report sets out, two new matters were excluded from legal aid—contrary to the express intention set out in the consultation that legal aid would continue to be available—namely, the areas of sentence planning and pre-tariff reviews. There was no subsequent consultation on these changes.
At paragraph 163, the committee dismissed the Lord Chancellor’s assertion that legal aid was being abused by prisoners complaining about what prison they were confined in, or about prison conditions, saying, damningly and accurately,
“legal aid is already unavailable for such claims”.
At paragraph 168, it pointed up the hollowness of the Government’s claim that judicial review would be available given the restrictions being imposed on the number of cases firms might bring and the limitations of the exceptional funding regime. At paragraph 169, it asked the Government to consider the combined effect of the residence test and the exceptional funding criteria and invited them to explain,
“how access to justice rights will be maintained where both policies are in operation”.
What is the Government’s response to that very significant question?
The Government airily dismissed the concerns on internal prison complaints but, as we have heard, the Chief Inspector of Prisons is quoted at paragraph 174 as finding the response “disappointing”. He emphasised the problems of prisoners with disabilities, especially mental health problems, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, warned that prisoner confidence in the complaints system was crucial to prison safety. As recent events have demonstrated, prison safety is a real concern. Similarly, at paragraph 174, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman voiced concerns, especially about his lack of statutory independence that the Lord Chancellor has promised to rectify. I must ask the Minister when the legislation, urgently pressed for by the committee at paragraph 177, will be enacted.
At paragraph 181 the committee identified the need for public funding,
“to prevent infringements of prisoners’ right of access to court arising in practice”.
From paragraphs 182 to 188, it identified serious issues for prisoners with mental health problems, the vast majority exemplified by the chief inspector’s remarks in the case mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, about segregation, in particular of women prisoners. In parenthesis, when I asked a question about women prisoners being held in segregation the reply that I received from the Ministry of Justice was that it was too costly to obtain the details of the numbers and length of time such women had been so confined. To his credit, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, agreed that the answer was ridiculous and procured the relevant information.
At paragraph 188, the Joint Committee noted that since 2010 the majority of treatment cases were mental health cases and it was not satisfied that these prisoners would be able to use the complaints procedure effectively. It recommended that the LAA retain the ability to grant funding for these cases where the implications for access to justice are clear. Noble Lords will not need reminding that the majority of prisoners suffer from mental health disorders: 70% of one or more mental health disorders for adults, 90% for young offenders. Again, what is the Government’s response to the case of prisoners suffering from these disorders? In relation to mother and baby cases, of which there are mercifully few, the committee called for an exemption in cases where legal representation would be desirable. Will the Government not accede to this request?
The concerns are echoed in relation to young offenders, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, where, as the committee pointed out at paragraph 205, such matters, including in particular resettlement cases, are being removed even before the Government respond to their consultation paper, Transforming Youth Custody. Trenchantly at paragraph 206 the committee disagreed that advocacy services and internal complaints systems would be effective and asserted that:
“This could leave young people vulnerable and deny them their rights”.
This would be not least in key areas such as,
“housing law, social care law and public law”.
Moreover, it dismissed the young offender’s right to judicial review, which was raised by the Government, since a young offender would require a litigation friend to pursue the action; it cannot be brought by a minor on his own initiative. It urged the retention of young offender cases within scope, specifically resettlement cases. Finally, at paragraphs 213 and 218, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Bach, it recommended reconsideration of the position in relation to Parole Board hearings and categorisation cases. This is a formidable catalogue of concerns about, and in many cases outright opposition to, what the Government are doing.
Once again, the Minister will shortly stand at the Dispatch Box, like Horatius on the bridge, with no troops behind him. There is not a single voice that has been raised in this Chamber tonight in support of the Government’s position. It would be unfair to suggest that the Minister, who was a member of the JCHR and presumably agreed with its report, has changed his mind now that he has taken if not the Queen’s shilling, then at least the Lord Chancellor’s shilling, if only because he is not being paid a shilling or indeed anything else for the job that he has undertaken. But I hope that he can prevail upon the Government to think again, and quickly, about the direction and extent of travel reflected in these regulations.
I commend to him in particular the response of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law to these issues. The centre does not,
“share the Government’s view that treatment cases will never be of sufficient priority to justify the use of public funds, or that sentencing matters such as categorisation and segregation are considered incapable of warranting legal aid”.
Importantly, it dismisses the so-called “adequate alternatives” to which the Government refer—for example, the complaints system and the ombudsman—as “first ports of call”, in the MoJ’s phrase, for four substantial reasons.
First, as per the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, whom I welcome back to the side of the angels after his digression over the issues of miscarriages of justice and compensation, the courts require alternative remedies to be exhausted before seeking judicial review, so legal aid would not be the first port of call. Secondly, under the regulations, the non-judicial remedies would be the only point of call. Thirdly,
“the rule of law requires the possibility, at least as a last resort, of recourse to independent courts”,
and, fourthly,
“rule-of-law imperative is particularly compelling in settings—of which prisons are a paradigm example—in which individuals are subject to the exercise of highly coercive public law powers”.
The centre concluded by affirming that,
“judicial review has exerted a profound and positive influence upon the prison system in recent decades … the nature of any state’s prison system … is a key barometer of the rule of law”.
Tellingly, it adds:
“It is inevitable that the proposals, if implemented, would substantially undermine the valuable role played by courts in this area. If one of public law’s core functions is to safeguard vulnerable individuals against misuses of state authority, then it is hard to think of a more fundamental assault upon the capacity of public law to perform such a role”—
and all the more so when the custodial services are contracted out to oligopolies such as G4S and Serco.
What answer does the Minister have to this critique? Does he agree with the words uttered by Winston Churchill—who has already been quoted here tonight—as Home Secretary in 1910, when he said:
“A calm and dispassionate recognition of the rights … even of convicted criminals against the State … tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerating processes … are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminals mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are the sign and proof of the living virtue in it”?—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; col. 1354.]
Is the Minister, and are the Government, willing to disavow Churchill’s characteristically eloquent formulation of principle for the sake of a possible, but actually unlikely, saving of £4 million a year?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I can rise to the challenge of the “calm and dispassionate” response to which the noble Lord referred in his closing remarks. This has been a wide-ranging debate, involving very distinguished speakers with great knowledge and awareness of many of the issues which these regulations raise. I hope that the House will forgive me if, in the course of this dinner-hour debate, I do not respond to all the many criticisms that have been made but try to focus on the effect of the regulations and on why the Government have seen fit to bring them into effect.
I will begin by saying something about the wider context of the instrument. It is worth noting that spending on criminal legal aid for prison law in England and Wales has increased markedly in recent years, from around £1 million in 2001-02 to around £22 million in 2012-13.
Legal aid is a vital part of our justice system. However, limited public resources need to be targeted at those who need them most. With departments across government being asked to reduce their expenditure, legal aid cannot be immune. The legal aid scheme is paid for by the taxpayer, and we have to demonstrate to the public and hard-working families that we have scrutinised every aspect of legal aid spending to ensure that it can be justified. Unless the legal aid scheme is targeted at the people and cases where funding is most needed, it will not command public confidence. It was with this aim in mind that the Government proposed a number of changes to legal aid in England and Wales in April 2013. Following public consultation and careful consideration of the responses, the decision was taken to restrict the scope of criminal legal aid for prison law, among other reforms.
Lord Beecham
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but at paragraph 175 of its report the committee says specifically:
“the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman … told us about his concerns with the Government’s proposal, particularly in relation to his lack of statutory independence and his office’s ability to deal with any increased workload”.
How does the Minister square that with the assurance that he has just given?
Lord Faulks
The assurance that I have just given is that the Government take the view that it will be rare that there will be any need to refer to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman. However, the Ministry of Justice intends to put the PPO on a statutory footing as soon as legislative time permits. I note that the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted—and this must be in the same section to which the noble Lord referred—that the PPO has himself “acknowledged that his recommendations”, while not binding, are in fact “always accepted”.
There was understandable anxiety about mental health issues and learning difficulties for young offenders. The Government are of course extremely concerned with young offenders and their rehabilitation. I could give a detailed response, but that would be outside the scope of this debate, which is concerned with legal aid. That issue is a matter of continuing concern to the House, and indeed to the Government, just as the position with mental health issues is also a concern. I accept that many prisoners have a background with mental health issues.
Noble Lords may ask what is done to screen prisoners for mental health problems. As part of the early days in custody process, all prisoners are risk-assessed for potential harm to themselves and to others and from others. All incoming prisoners are given a medical examination to identify any short-term or long-term physical or mental health needs, including disability, drug or alcohol issues, and to ensure that follow-up action is taken.
Lord Beecham
Before the Minister sits down, can he tell the House if and when the Government will be publishing their response to the Joint Committee report of 13 December?
Lord Faulks
I cannot I am afraid give an exact date for that, but I shall take back the noble Lord’s concern and I will write to him when I have information. Of course, it is a matter that will be taken very seriously at the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for doing his best to defend this sorry set of regulations. The Government are very fortunate indeed to have his services on the Front Bench. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and who have explained with clarity and force why the regulations are wrong in principle and damaging in their consequences.
The Minister may have noticed the embarrassing lack of support for these regulations on the Benches behind him, and indeed anywhere in this House tonight. Before the Minister’s speech, your Lordships heard 15 speeches—I have been counting—all of them regretting these regulations and all highly critical of them and of the purported justifications for them. Noble Lords who have spoken tonight have reflected the widespread concern about the regulations that exists outside this House.
The Minister’s main argument, that the internal complaints system and the ombudsman system are an effective substitute for legal assistance and advice, is simply contrary to the advice of the Parole Board, the inspector of prisons and the ombudsman. It is contrary to court judgments over the years. It is contrary to the experience of all those who have spoken tonight, apart from the Minister. Indeed, it is irrational, given the lack of literacy, the youth, the immaturity and the mental health difficulties of so many prisoners, let alone their obvious inability to identify and present the issues that arise in their cases.
I ask the Minister to send a copy of today’s Hansard to the Secretary of State tomorrow morning, to ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the nature and strength of the concerns that have been expressed tonight from the broad experience and expertise that so characterise this place, to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the absence of any support for these regulations outside his own ministry and to ask the Secretary of State to think again about this important matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion in my name.
Children and Families Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“(7) In preparing and implementing individual health care plans and following the guidance issued by the Secretary of State, local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and governing bodies must work together in fulfilling their functions under this Act.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the time that they have given to me, my noble friend Lady Young, many of the staff at Diabetes UK and many others. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of Members’ interests: I am the chair of a small council at Diabetes UK.
I very much welcome the decision that the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and the Government made to include in the Bill a duty on schools to make arrangements for children with health conditions. I am genuinely grateful for that; it is a hugely positive step, and one that we hope will ensure that children with medical conditions get the support and help that they need to thrive at school. The draft guidance sets out many things that schools must do to ensure that children with medical conditions can take part in all parts of school life and give them the best possible chance of reaching their academic potential while staying safe and healthy. The draft guidance also acknowledges the different roles that CCGs, local authorities, schools, nurses, GPs and providers of health services have in ensuring that children with medical conditions get the support that they need to be in school. School nurses have several key roles in helping schools to meet the needs of children with medical conditions.
For many children with medical conditions, their specialist nurse often fulfils this role. Without this medical expertise, schools would not be in a position properly to support children with medical conditions, from awareness training about a condition right up to full training about a child’s condition, the administration of medicine and the use of equipment. While these responsibilities are included in the draft guidance, there remains no requirement in the Bill for local authorities or CCGs to fulfil their roles. That is why I have tabled Amendment 57C. It is essential that schools know that they can rely on their local authority, CCG and local health services to provide the expertise and training their staff will need.
The problems people report to many of the charities in the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance suggest that there will be an initial increase in requests for training as schools improve their support. We do not want to see some schools left without the training and skills their staff need.
We are already aware that there have been many occasions when schools have asked for training and the local authority or the local health service has not been able to provide it. The draft guidance refers to the NHS Act 2006 and Section 10 of the Children Act 2004, but these are general duties rather than ones that specifically meet the very particular needs that schools will have in securing the training they need for their staff. Has the Minister considered the possibility that some schools will not be able to access the training and expertise their staff need? If local authorities and CCGs cannot or will not provide the training and skills they need, will the Minister clarify what the next step is for a school in that situation?
When considering this point, it is important that we face up to some of the realities. We know that there are roughly 1,300 fully qualified school nurses. The average school nurse already looks after around 10 primary schools and two secondary schools. Even if the number of school nurses were to increase, it would take several years, and the duty needs to start to make a difference this September.
At the moment, we know that for more complex needs it is often the specialist nurse who organises training, helps to produce the individual healthcare plan and advises how much support each child requires. If the duty is to make an impact, the roles of the specialist nurse, school nurses and the local authorities that commission them and other healthcare professionals are vital. How will the crucial role of healthcare professionals, local authorities and CCGs in making sure that things improve in school for children with health conditions be communicated to them?
The indicative draft makes it very clear just how important an individual healthcare plan is. An individual healthcare plan draws together the thoughts of the school, a healthcare professional, pupils and parents. It makes clear how the condition might affect the pupil, sets out the medicine and equipment they need, and details the management of their condition, who should be trained, the level of support needed, what to do in emergencies and who is responsible for doing what. It is also tailored specifically to each child or young person with a medical condition. Yet the indicative draft guidance also states that not all children with a medical condition will need an individual healthcare plan. The Health Conditions in Schools Alliance has said that it cannot envisage a situation in which a child with a medical condition would not need an individual healthcare plan. Even in circumstances where the pupil manages the condition themselves and is rarely affected by it, it is worth noting in an individual healthcare plan that the condition exists, the medicine the pupil takes to control it and what to do in an emergency. As it stands, the guidance gives schools an opportunity to opt out of delivering individual healthcare plans. It also raises the question: who makes this decision? We do not want a situation where someone is making arbitrary judgments on who does and does not get an individual healthcare plan.
The draft guidance makes very clear the role of the governing body in fulfilling the duty, both in agreeing policies and in making sure that they are delivered. Paragraph 10 of the guidance covers renewing policies regularly, which is very welcome. It would be strengthened further if it was made clear that governing bodies should audit the support the school provides for children with health conditions so that they know their medical condition and put it into policy, and ensure that any individual healthcare plans are delivered.
Many charities have recognised the complaint that some children’s individual healthcare plans are not followed. Making sure that the school fulfils what has been agreed will contribute to ensuring that children get the support they need. Again, I thank the Minister for what he has addressed on this subject so far, and I am pleased with what has been achieved to date. If he could respond to the questions I have asked, I would be very grateful, and if he could give some clarity on these last few points, I think we will be able to make real progress here.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, never again will a pupil with medical conditions be excluded from full or part-time education, school trips, physical education and extra-curricular activities because of their medical condition. I applaud the Government for the stance they have taken in this area, as do the voluntary and charitable sectors. This is light years from where we were before. This document, which is still for consultation—that will be an opportunity to feed in many of the issues—is one of the best things I have seen. It deals in detail with a whole host of issues. A few things are missing from that document, and I look forward to feeding them in during the consultation period.
The important thing for me, which is in the document, is that governing bodies will have the responsibility to ensure that the procedures are followed and that when a school is first notified that a pupil has a medical condition, action will follow. Governing bodies will also ensure that the policies cover the role of individual healthcare plans. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on this—and I will be interested in the Minister’s reply—as I cannot envisage a situation where a child or young person who has a medical condition would not have a healthcare plan. I cannot get my head around that, as it seems obvious. This is not bureaucratic or about more clerical work, but just plain common sense. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
I like the point made in this document that supporting a child is not just the responsibility of the school but a partnership between professionals and the parents themselves. I also like that GPs will have responsibility for notifying schools when a child has a medical condition. That is important, and it has often not happened in the past. I will end by thanking the Minister for taking this important issue forward, and I look forward to his response on the issue of healthcare plans.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I also put my name to this amendment, and I very much support everything that has been said so far on these issues. I congratulate the Government, and the noble Lord, Lord Nash, in particular, on having listened to what Peers and charities in the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance have said. They have done a great deal to work out a way forward. Again, I will not repeat the many things that have already been mentioned, which are now on the table to be worked out in detail, but the area that perhaps interests me more than any other is the role of governing bodies in ensuring that teachers in schools have the training and expertise that their staff require to cope with situations.
We all know that there is a shortage of qualified school nurses; we hope to hear from the Government how their number might be increased. It is not only that; an area that worries me concerns those with special needs that also involve mental health problems. Those students may well need guidance from an increased number of educational psychologists, among others.
We all want to hear from the Minister what plans the Government have to ensure that this partnership between so many organisations will be delivered to the benefit of children and families generally, so that they will feel—as they have not felt in the past—that they are being supported in the situations that they have to cope with and have always tried their best to cope with. However, they have felt very much that they did not get the help they deserved. I thank the Minister for what he has done so far and hope that he will be able to reassure us still further on some of the areas about which we have concern.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I, too, offer my thanks and congratulations to the Minister and the Government for the considerable progress made since Committee and for the frankly stunning indicative guidance. It is not yet out for consultation, but it is extremely helpful. Of course, the problem with providing your Lordships’ House with such prospective guidance is that we all have things that we think could better it. I will not repeat the points that noble Lords have already made, but will add briefly the two or three that I am concerned about.
I reiterate that the guidance must make it explicit that children with diagnosed health conditions are given an individual healthcare plan, even if there are no obvious actions, not least because medical and health conditions change and for a child at school suddenly to have to go through that process, when it was known about at the start, seems rather foolish. It will speed up the planning process and the school’s ability to monitor the child’s health if they are already on the radar of the school.
I particularly like the section in paragraph 39 on unacceptable practice. This is extremely helpful, but there is one glaring omission. Nowhere does it say that schools must take account of a doctor’s diagnosis rather than make their own. In Committee I mentioned a young man who was struggling with severe ME and chronic fatigue syndrome; but because the head did not believe that ME existed, he was given no rest times and was actually excluded because he was unable to take part in sport, which was deemed to be bad behaviour. Despite the fact that his hospital consultant had given the school formal advice, the head chose to ignore it. That is unacceptable bad practice and, in my view, it needs to be included.
That relates also to the ambiguity in the guidance about whether pupils with medical conditions should have individual healthcare plans. We must not have a get-out clause for schools. I hope that the Minister will be able to give reassurance on that point and others that my colleagues have made.
Finally, I give my particular thanks to the Minister and his team for meeting me to discuss my idea about access for teachers with frequently asked questions on a range of health conditions. This is now progressing: discussions are about to start with officials in the Department of Health. I know that the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance already has a date to discuss that and other things with the department in the very near future. When a school nurse is not around, this tool for teachers is going to be absolutely vital. It is not going to be technical and complex but will help to alleviate the fears that a teacher will have if a child suddenly moves into their class with a condition of which they have no experience at all, and if they want to understand both the learning and social implications of such a condition.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Non-Afl)
My Lords, at this time of night I shall be brief and not repeat anything that has already been said. However, I wish to make effusive remarks about the Minister’s response to the case made by the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance and for bringing forward a government amendment to the Bill, for which we are grateful. I thank the Minister for ensuring that the indicative draft of the guidance was available before we discussed this element of the Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for proposing this very important amendment. He sought a response from the Minister on what happens if a school—schools now have a very clear responsibility to look after these children—fails to get an adequate input from the local health system in terms of support and making plans for individual children. From time to time staff at schools across the country say that they would like to provide a better response in this regard but are unable to do so because they do not get adequate training and support from the local health system. Therefore, this amendment is important as it would reinforce the existing duties under the Children Act—which, alas, are currently ignored—and make sure that a school is not put in the impossible position of having a statutory duty but no means of carrying it out if it is not given the necessary support.
School nurses are important but so are specialist nurses for various conditions because in many cases their specialist knowledge will be required to establish an adequate plan for each child. Therefore, this issue cannot be left simply to school nurses, quite apart from the workload issue that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised.
I know that this issue is of great concern to the trade unions. It was, indeed, their only stumbling block. I held the mistaken belief that the trade unions were not willing to take up this challenge on an ideological basis. However, their concerns were practical ones. They were very willing to see teachers give this support to children provided they were properly supported and trained to do so. Therefore, the question is: what does a school do if the NHS does not step up to the plate in providing training and support for it?
The indicative guidance rightly talks about the role of Ofsted in ensuring that schools meet this new duty. However, there needs to be further discussion between the department and Ofsted about the latter’s role and what it will be able to do in relation to this issue. The guidance says that inspectors are already briefed to consider the needs of pupils with chronic or long-term medical conditions and to report on how well their needs are being met. However, that was not quite the impression I got when I met the Chief Inspector of Schools a few weeks ago, so clarity is needed about what requirements will be laid on Ofsted, not perhaps in terms of this duty being fully inspected but at least the forthcoming guidance to inspectors should brief them on it. Perhaps at some stage an ad hoc report could be produced on how well the guidance is being implemented. I press the Minister to tell us what a school will do if it hits a brick wall with the NHS.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their comments on Amendment 57C, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and to all those noble Lords who have brought these matters to our attention. We are in consultation on the guidance and we welcome all noble Lords’ comments on it and on all other matters. I hope that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and other noble Lords that further primary legislation is not necessary.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his response. I still have one or two concerns. The opt-out is an issue, as is the issue about what governing bodies and schools do. I accept his kind offer to meet with officials, which I will do in the next few days. Other noble Lords may want to come with me. There are one or two small things that can be ironed out. Having said that, I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has done up to now and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“Provision and support for bullied children
(1) The Secretary of State must produce an anti-bullying strategy (“the Strategy”) (and consequential Code of Practice and Statutory Guidelines) for schools and further education institutions on ways of preventing and protecting children and young people from bullying and ensuring effective recovery programmes to counter the consequences of severe bullying.
(2) The Strategy produced under subsection (1) must include a comprehensive definition of bullying.
(3) The Strategy shall ensure cross links between the SEN and Anti-Bullying Codes of Practice and Statutory Guidelines, so that schools are aware that some bullied children and young people will have special educational needs.
(4) Where the impact of bullying results in a pupil or student having social, mental or emotional needs, schools and further education institutions should use the graduated approach detailed in the SEN Code of Practice, but if those needs are complex and will not be met through this approach, then an education, health and care plan should be made.
(5) Where any bullied child or student who has been out of school or further education institution for a period of three months or longer, and who has mental or emotional problems (whether or not they are impacting on the child or student’s learning), the school or further education institution will have a duty to help provide an urgent referral to the child or young person’s local Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service.
(6) A bullied pupil or student who is unable to attend their school or institution, but who is still on the roll, must be brought to the attention of the local authority by their school or institution within three months of starting to miss school.
(7) Where a pupil or student is brought to the attention of the local authority under subsection (6), it has a duty to find alternative provision that is suitable for the pupil or student and their needs, and the pupil or student’s educational establishment has a duty to co-operate with the local authority.
(8) During an inspection, OFSTED will expect a school or institution to provide details of the plan for any child out of school for an extended period who is still on the school roll.”
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for the helpful meeting and exchange of letters that we have had on this important matter of provision and support for bullied children since Committee. I have laid a much simplified probing amendment in the hope that we can make further progress, given that there was considerable cross-party support for the original amendments.
My amendment falls into four distinct parts. The first three sections all seek to strengthen the definition of bullying and the cross-links between the special educational needs code of practice and the bullying code of practice for all bullying incidents. The new draft definition, which I was kindly shown, strengthens and picks up many of the points in the original amendment. There is one minor omission. The second to last line of the new paragraph refers to how bullying can result in intimidation of a victim through the threat of violence or by isolating them either face to face or online. I am afraid the reality is that we need to insert the words, “as well as actual violence”. Apart from that, the new definition is extremely helpful and I am grateful that we were allowed to see it.
Can the Minister give the House more concrete evidence that, when bullying has happened, a school or college is required to consider the SEN implications for that pupil or student, and that there will be formal cross-links between the two codes of practice? If the Minister can provide that reassurance, it would go a considerable way towards the original amendment tabled in Committee, which asked for all severely bullied children to be considered as having special educational needs. This is because a very large number of children are affected both physically and mentally, because they and their families often seek help from doctors and because at present there is no requirement for children and adult mental health services to prioritise them.
Subsections (4) and (5) of the proposed new clause address that. A child out of school for a period of three months as a result of bullying almost invariably suffers from depression. They can self-harm, develop panic attacks or anorexia or want to kill themselves—and as we know, around 20 a year are successful in killing themselves. Speedy access to CAMHS is vital. Will my noble friend provide reassurance that children in this state can get the help they need, with quick referral? Three months out of school is too long for a pupil to be away from learning and without active support. Will he also confirm that a child diagnosed with clinical depression, whether from bullying or not, would be considered as having a health condition and therefore come under the guidance that we have discussed in the previous group of amendments?
The next part of the proposed new clause—subsections (6) and (7)—tackles the difficulty of educational provision for those children so severely bullied that they cannot face attending school or college. I remind your Lordships that academic research by the National Centre for Social Research estimates that on average 16,000 pupils or students a year are in this position. That is the equivalent of 16 average-sized secondary schools, which is a shockingly high number. I am grateful for the points that the Minister commented on in Committee. There is some specialist alternative provision through the new free schools, but at present there are only a handful in the country as a whole, and most of the alternative-provision free schools focus on students with emotional and behavioural difficulties and only a handful on bullied children. There is certainly nothing that would cover the 16,000 children who need support.
These children cannot face going into the school where the bullying happened, even in a special unit inside the school—they cannot even cross the boundary through the school gates. They must not go to pupil referral units or to an alternative provision for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties. What can be provided for these children, both in the short term and the longer term? What support can local authorities access to make that provision for them work, as some schools do not allow the money to follow the child, even though the child is not in school? Finally, will the Minister ensure that at the very least Ofsted will ask schools to account for children who are not attending for long periods, for whatever reason, and to state what action the school has taken to help them?
I end on a positive note. The Government are doing very well on beginning to change the culture around bullying, particularly through their £4 million support for the Anti-Bullying Alliance, and including the work of Anti-Bullying PRO, which is training pupils as anti-bullying ambassadors. I have seen them in practice and in training and they are extremely impressive—but it takes time, and only a few can be trained at any one time. It is a small organisation and there are thousands of schools.
I have also seen the wonderful new online ChildLine help that helps combat cyberbullying and sexting, called Zipit. If noble Lords have not had a chance to look at it, they should do so. It is a polite and slightly tongue-in-cheek way for the young to put down friends and pupils who send them inappropriate or bullying messages in a way that does not make them feel as though they are victims. The whole thing can be simply calmed down. ChildLine has done very well by producing that. Frankly, more needs to be done, and I hope to hear the Minister today provide reassurance to your Lordships’ House on this very serious issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Brinton on this amendment and congratulate her on her determination and persistence in the interests of these severely bullied children. She has over the years managed to convince successive Education Ministers in your Lordships’ House that there is a need for something to be done for these children. So far, not an awful lot has been done, until very recently. What we need—and what we have, fortunately—is the expertise and skills of my noble friend the Minister. I am convinced that he is going to knock heads together and that something will happen.
Because of the late hour I will make just three brief points. Although all eight subsections of my noble friend’s proposed new clause are important, I think that three of them are particularly important. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the words at the end of the first subsection, which is about the Secretary of State,
“ensuring effective recovery programmes to counter the consequences of severe bullying”.
There are organisations that know how to do it—and these children should not and must not be lost children. They can be recovered, they are being recovered, by some wonderful organisations, but these organisations find it very difficult to get the money, as my noble friend has pointed out. Their expertise must be expanded on and cloned across the country to deal with these 16,000 children. I learnt just recently that, sadly, three of their centres have had to close because of lack of funding. That is a tragedy because of the good work that they can and should be doing.
In proposed new subsection (7) my noble friend says that she wants the school to have,
“a duty to find alternative provision that is suitable for the pupil or student and their needs”.
That does not mean a PRU. Very often that is where the bullies are, so that is certainly not suitable for these children’s needs.
Finally, I should like to echo my noble friend’s comments about Ofsted. We all know how very influential it is when Ofsted makes a point of inspecting something or asking about something. Unfortunately, what often happens is that when a child is on the school roll but does not attend, pressure is put on the parents to take them and give them home education even though the parent may not really be capable of doing it and would have to give up their job, which the family economy could not bear. We must try to stop that practice happening. If Ofsted is putting schools on the spot and saying, “This pupil has not been attending—what have you done about it? Where are they going? How are you making sure that the money follows them into appropriate provision”, then something will happen.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. She is a real expert in this area and it was important that she put this amendment down. I would like to stress one particular point—the role of the school in all of this. At one stage I came across a group of schools that had a very effective policy of dealing with this situation. Their method was to have a mentor for each pupil who entered the school, and the child who was mentoring got merit points for successfully introducing and making life smooth for the new student. I very much hope that we can do a little more to find out what group of schools that was—I regret to say that I have lost my details on it. It seems a very good example of best practice to sell right across the stage of all schools. As we know, it is not just a question of bullying in schools—there is bullying in all forms of life, including employment when you grow up as well.
I hope that the Minister will take all this very seriously. The role of school governors is important, and I should perhaps have mentioned earlier that I am president of the NGA. I think we have a meeting with school governors and the Minister shortly, and this is one of the items that it will be important to put on the agenda.
Lord Storey
I support my noble friend Lady Brinton on this excellent probing amendment, and will briefly take the opportunity to say that often the bully needs support as well. I have seen many occasions where that support has been given to the bully. Sometimes the bully, with the support of the parents, is referred and the problems are sorted. I say this with great caution but often, quite rightly, we put all our emphasis on the poor child or young person who is being bullied and we forget about the bully. Often with the bully, it is a cry or plea for help. As well as doing all the excellent things that my noble friend Lady Brinton is saying we should, we have to find and understand that need.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to intervene on this at this late hour, but I am tempted to, as I thought that every school had to have a bullying strategy and that there was a code. It may sit dustily on a shelf in the headmaster’s study but it is supposed to be there. I thought schools had to have a practice and some sort of plan to involve children and young people in that strategy. ChildLine has certainly produced peer programmes down the years where young people have worked together to prevent bullying themselves, through their councils. Much as I support the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her efforts, it is my understanding that this should already be in every school.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I did not want our relative silence on these Benches to be interpreted as meaning that we were not in full support of the noble Baroness’s amendment. She will know that we have consistently worked with and supported her on these issues. Because of the lateness of the hour, I do not intend reading the speech that I had prepared, but will simply say that we think that having a national anti-bullying strategy combined with the code of practice, in the way that is described in this amendment, is a sensible staged approach to dealing with this very sensitive and growing issue. We accept that head teachers and teachers must have some discretion, as I think the Minister said in Committee, but they also need help and support. This package is the right combination for that and I hope that the noble Lord is able to persuade us that the Government are taking this seriously going forward.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate and assure them that we take this matter very seriously. I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Brinton for bringing her experience and expertise to bear on these issues. I also thank my noble friend for meeting me recently and for helping me to better understand her very legitimate concerns about the impact bullying can have on the lives of children and young people. I know that she is aware that we share those concerns.
Although I am not persuaded that legislation is the right approach, those discussions have proved extremely useful in identifying gaps in our advice to schools and in helping us to understand how we can do more to address these important issues. As a direct result of the debates in this House and discussions outside it—with both my noble friend and other experts, notably the Anti-Bullying Alliance, which has always provided us with helpful and constructive input in the development of our approaches—we are committed to enhancing our advice to schools. I will say a bit more about precisely what we are doing in a moment.
The Government take a zero-tolerance approach to bullying and our advice to schools on this is clear and firm. I acknowledge that there is a place for legislation. All schools are required to have a behaviour policy which contains measures to tackle bullying, and we think that this approach is the right one. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, talked about these policies being on shelves but I do not think that, in the modern world, with the kind of pupils and inner-city issues that we have, any school can afford to have any of these policies on shelves. They are right at the forefront of practice and I know that bullying is something that all good schools take very seriously indeed. However, the national strategy that the amendment proposes could focus schools’ attention on complying with it as a tick-box exercise at the expense of allowing teachers to exercise their professional judgment, creativity and energy to tackle bullying as it presents itself in their particular school.
We had a question earlier today about Islamophobic bullying. Shortly after 9/11, outside Pimlico Academy in Lupus Street, which my wife and I sponsor, there was a fight between 200 non-Muslim and 200 Muslim pupils who just went at each other. It was basically a riot. There were police on horseback and ambulances. It was quite dreadful. Such issues are not easily sorted out by dusting bits of paper off shelves. I am not saying that having a strategy is not important, but that school has worked hard over a long period and I am pleased to say that racism there is a thing of the past. This is essential to all good schools.
However, it is important that schools are held to account for their effectiveness in tackling behaviour and bullying. That is why we reduced the reporting requirements for school inspections in 2011 to focus on the core business of a school: four core areas, of which one is behaviour and safety, instead of the previous 27. In setting out how inspectors should judge this, Ofsted’s inspection handbook includes explicit reference to considering types, rates and patterns of bullying. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, also referred earlier to friendship groups. School inspectors must consider how schools prevent and tackle bullying, and where necessary prompt schools to improve. This approach encourages schools really to focus on behaviour and bullying.
I know that concerns were raised in Committee that inspectors do not always see schools as they really are. Since the first Ofsted inspections in 1992, there has been a steady journey towards unannounced visits. Initially schools received more than a year’s notice of inspectors turning up. Over time, this shifted to eight weeks, and from 2005 to around two days. Under this Government, this has been reduced to almost no notice, with inspectors calling head teachers the afternoon before an inspection takes place. In December, launching his annual report, the chief inspector announced that where there were concerns about pupils’ behaviour, including bullying, schools could be subject to visits with no notice at all. I believe that these measures ensure that inspectors see schools as they really are; we no longer hear stories of pupils being sent to the ice rink for the day or asked to stay at home.
Our approach and strategy provide the right balance between requirements in law, flexibility for schools and strict accountability. My noble friend also proposed that a comprehensive definition of bullying be developed. We agree that there is a need to provide clarity for schools, but this is best done through advice rather than legislation. I know that noble Lords expressed concerns in Committee that the advice that we currently outline to schools does not include a reference to the imbalance of power present in many instances of bullying. I confirm that we are working closely with the anti-bullying organisations, and can reassure my noble friend and other noble Lords that we will incorporate an appropriate reference to the imbalance of power in our advice to schools.
In the light of previous debates in this House and subsequent discussions, we have identified how our advice could be further enhanced to address the concerns raised. We are creating an online fact sheet to inform schools about how they can support bullied children. This will include all the relevant information about and links to what steps can be taken to support children who are severely affected by bullying. It will incorporate information about in-school provision, SEN support and alternative provision for children severely affected by bullying. I hope that practical steps such as this will be welcomed.
I hope that noble Lords will recognise that the Government have done a great deal to address the issues around bullying, but we can go further—by acknowledging more explicitly, for example, that severe bullying can have a clear impact on a child or young person’s mental health. Therefore, I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that we will make it clearer in Special Education Needs: Code of Practice, which is a critical document for schools and other bodies, that bullying is one thing that might lead to a child or young person having special educational needs and that, where it does so, schools must take appropriate action. This can involve support from external agencies, if needed, whether or not a child has an education, health and care plan. In addition, we will make appropriate cross-references between the bullying guidance and the SEN code of practice to ensure that schools are clear about this point.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full and detailed response. Much of what he has said has gone a considerable way towards addressing not just my concerns and those of other noble Lords who have spoken but those of the APPG on Bullying, which has been looking at this issue for some time. The only outstanding issue, which cannot be tackled through legislation, is the monitoring of alternative provision to make sure that it is available across the country. Perhaps I can bother the Minister outside the Chamber in future to make sure that that happens.
I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly brief debate. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that one of the reasons for reiterating the importance of having a strategy nationally and in schools was to have all the information in one place. Part of the problem that schools have faced is that there have been lots of disparate bits of information that have not all been drawn together. We were aware of where there was a requirement but it was thought to be beneficial for schools to have something in one place to work their way through. I hope the cross-links that the Minister talked about—between SEN, the Health Conditions in Schools Alliance and the bullying code of practice—will go some way to doing that. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(4AD) For the avoidance of doubt, a direction made pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4A) as amended by subsection (4AA) shall not have the automatic effect of transferring the functions of the Director of Children’s Services and the Lead Member of Children’s Services in sections 18 and 19 of the Children’s Act 2004 to the Secretary of State’s nominee.
(4AE) Before giving a direction to an authority pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4A), the Secretary of State must give the authority 14 days’ notice in writing of the proposed direction.
(4AF) The proposed direction shall include a determination as to which functions shall be exercised by the Secretary of State or a person nominated by him and which functions shall be exercised by the authority, including those set out in subsection (4AD) above.
(4AG) The authority may make written representations to the Secretary of State about the proposed direction within that period.
(4AH) The Secretary of State may modify or withdraw a direction under this section by notice in writing to the authority or authorities to which it was given.”
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hughes—who has asked me to speak on her behalf—and will also speak to Amendment 57F. These amendments seek to address the need for clarification and accountability in the exercise of the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene in the delivery of children’s services by local authorities.
Clause 82 amends the Education Act 1996 and the Local Government Act 1999 to the effect that when a Secretary of State intervenes in a local authority, usually in response to poor performance, any legislative provision applying to the local authority can be read as passing to a third party which has taken over the local authority’s functions and service delivery. Subsection (2) of Clause 82 applies these provisions to children’s services and subsection (3) to any best-value services across a local authority. I have to say at the outset that there is no disagreement with the need for intervention powers. It is absolutely necessary to protect services for local people.
In Grand Committee, we sought to clarify the effect of the Government’s intentions here and the Minister assured us then, and subsequently in letters to my noble friend, that the intention was simply a helpful clarification of the effect of a direction under the Secretary of State’s last-resort power and did not expand those powers. She gave the example of clarifying for a family court in the case of a care order or adoption that the court can legally recognise the decisions and arrangements of a third party which has taken over the local authority’s functions, even though that third party will be exercising legal responsibilities and powers vested in local authorities.
I am also grateful to the Minister that her officials met with my noble friend to discuss the clause in more detail. However, the Government’s clause still leaves some uncertainties about where the accountabilities lie following interventions. I apologise if this all gets rather technical, but it requires some further clarification. In essence, the clause as it stands leaves open the question as to where the statutory roles of the director of children’s services and lead member will reside after intervention and whether they, or the third party, are accountable for the way in which local authority functions are executed. Taken at face value, Clause 82(2), underpinning the roles of director of children’s services and lead member, could be read as transferring accountability to a third party. If so, the local authority would no longer be required to appoint to these positions and accountability would no longer rest with the local authority. The local authority would then effectively be severed from delivery of children’s services and accountability would reside with the Secretary of State and the third party.
These amendments do two things. First, they insert a process in which a specific decision is taken about whether the roles of the director of children’s services and lead member transfer to a third party following a direction. Secondly, they allow a local authority to make representations to the Secretary of State as to which functions are transferred to that third party and which remain with the local authority. This is a belt-and-braces amendment to ensure there will be no loose ends or lack of clarity as to where accountability resides, and for what functions, following a direction. It is necessary because while the Minister in her examples has sought to reassure us that the clause is very limited in effect, in fact the wording is very wide in scope and potentially goes far beyond the specific cases of family courts considering care orders and adoptions.
If the Minister is not minded to accept my amendment, perhaps she can explain why not and put on record the practical process that will take place, including discussion with a local authority, when a direction of this sort is under consideration. I look forward to hearing her response.
Baroness Northover
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for giving me the opportunity to clarify the scope of the Secretary of State’s intervention powers under Section 497A(4A) of the Education Act 1996 and Section 15(6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1999, as amended by Clause 82. Using these powers in a failing local authority would be a serious step, and it is right that we are very clear how they might be used. I hope to be able to satisfy the noble Baroness’s desire for such clarity.
Noble Lords will recall that these provisions are intended to put beyond doubt the Secretary of State’s existing powers to shift, in cases of very serious failure, the exercise of some of a local authority’s functions to a third party who will deliver them on behalf of the Secretary of State. Clause 82 clarifies the effect of the exercise of those existing powers—for example, in relation to care and adoption, and Ofsted’s powers to inspect the performance of the local authority’s functions—in whatever form they are delivered.
I will address each of the points in turn, because I know, as the noble Baroness mentioned, that meetings have been held with my noble friend, and that there is a wish that this be put on the record. That is what I shall do, if noble Lords will be patient.
Amendment 57E seeks assurance that a direction under subsection (4A) of Section 497A of the 1996 Act, as that section is amended by this Bill, would not automatically result in the transfer of the functions of director of, and lead member for, children’s services to the Secretary of State’s nominee. Amendment 57F does likewise for a direction under subsection (6)(a) of Section 15 of the 1999 Act.
I can be quite clear that a direction under the provisions in question would not result in an automatic transfer of the role of director of children’s services or of lead member for children’s services, to a third party who had taken on a local authority’s functions. That is, in part, because Sections 18 and 19 of the Children Act 2004, which set out the requirements on local authorities to appoint a director of and lead member for children’s services, are not functions which may be subject to a direction under subsection (4A) of Section 497A of the 1996 Act.
Following a subsection (4A) direction, the DCS and lead member would remain in place, although their responsibilities may be altered by agreement with the local authority as part of the transfer of functions from the local authority to the Secretary of State, or a nominee. The DCS and lead member would not, of course, exercise control over the local authority functions which had transferred to a third party following a direction under Section 497A.
Although the powers under subsection (6)(a) of Section 15 of the 1999 Act apply to Sections 18 and 19 of the Children Act 2004, I again reassure noble Lords that a direction under subsection (6)(a) would not result in the automatic transfer of those functions. If the Secretary of State wanted to transfer those functions to himself or a nominee, the direction would need specifically to set that out. I also point out that the amendment to Section 15 of the 1999 Act in Clause 82 of the Bill does not alter that in any way.
I also reassure the noble Baronesses that proposed new subsections (4AE), (4AG), (6E) and (6G) in their amendments, which are intended to ensure that the Secretary of State gives the local authority written notice of a proposed direction, are not necessary. Whenever in recent years we have contemplated issuing a direction, we have conducted initial discussions about its content beforehand. We have then formally given notice of our intention to issue a direction and formally invited representations from the local authority and other interested parties—I am glad that I am going to hand this to Hansard, so that they can make sure that the record is exactly as it is supposed to be. We will continue with the practice that I have just laid out.
Further, were we looking to transfer the exercise of some of a local authority’s functions to a third party, as these powers envisage, we would of course have to follow the provisions of employment law in respect of any employees. That would require consultation and appropriate due diligence around the terms of the transfer, which could only be done together with the local authority. In any event, in all but the most urgent cases, common-law principles of procedural fairness and good governance would require that notice of a direction be given to a council and an opportunity be afforded for representations to be made before a direction is given.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister very much for that and I, too, will probably want to take a little time and dwell on all that in Hansard. For the moment, I am grateful to her for putting that information on the record and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Application of suspension etc powers to establishments and agencies in England
(1) In section 14A of the Care Standards Act 2000 (power of Welsh Ministers to suspend registration of person in respect of establishment or agency), in subsection (1)—
(a) for “Welsh Ministers” substitute “registration authority”, and(b) omit “for which the Welsh Ministers are the registration authority”.(2) In subsection (2) of that section, for “Welsh Ministers give” substitute “registration authority gives”.
(3) In section 15(4A) of that Act (duty of Welsh Ministers to give notice of decision to grant application for cancellation or variation of suspension)—
(a) for “Welsh Ministers decide” substitute “registration authority decides”,(b) for “they” substitute “it”, and(c) for “their” substitute “its”.(4) In section 20B of that Act (urgent procedure for suspension or variation etc: Wales), in the heading omit “: Wales”.
(5) In subsection (1) of that section—
(a) in paragraph (a) omit “for which the Welsh Ministers are the registration authority”, and(b) in paragraph (b)—(i) for “Welsh Ministers have” substitute “registration authority has”, and(ii) for “they act” substitute “it acts”.(6) In subsection (2) of that section, for “Welsh Ministers” in both places substitute “registration authority”.
(7) In subsection (4)(b) of that section, for “Welsh Ministers’” substitute “registration authority’s”.”
Lord Nash
My Lords, Amendments 57G and 64ZA complement those which I introduced in Committee to pave the way for the introduction of a new framework for the regulation and inspection of children’s homes. We have worked very closely with Ofsted on how the inspection of children’s homes should be improved.
Amendment 57G is intended to equip Oftsed with the powers required to make a prompt and timely intervention when it identifies serious concerns about the care of children. The amendment would extend provisions in the Care Standards Act that already operate in Wales to England to allow Ofsted to suspend a person’s registration in relation to a setting caring for children that is regulated under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act. This means a criminal offence would be committed if a registered person continued to operate the setting while their registration was suspended.
While this power could apply to any setting regulated by Ofsted under Part 2 of the Care Standards Act, for example a fostering service, we expect that it would be used almost always in relation to children’s homes, where Ofsted assesses that there is a need for urgent action to suspend a person’s registration while concerns about a home’s care are investigated.
At present, in England, if there is a serious incident in a home, Ofsted has the power only to cancel a person’s registration. This amendment would enable Ofsted to take action more quickly in cases where this is needed. For example, where there are allegations of abuse in a home, it might be appropriate to suspend a registration while these are being investigated.
Both we and Ofsted recognise that a power to suspend a person’s registration is a draconian one. We expect that moves to suspend registration would happen only on rare occasions where there were very serious concerns. Ofsted would take this action only if, following consideration of other enforcement options, it was judged to be necessary given the specific circumstances of the case.
Ofsted is committed to exercising this power in a fair and proportionate way. For example, we would expect inspectors, as far as is reasonably practicable, to contact a provider shortly before delivering a suspension notice. This contact would make it clear that the suspension would not formally start until the notice had been properly and formally served.
Ofsted already has a power to suspend early years services under the Childcare Act 2006. There is a protocol between Ofsted and the Care Standards Tribunal to expedite appeals against suspension notices by early years providers to ensure early judicial scrutiny of inspectors’ actions in these urgent and extreme situations. Ofsted expects to enter into a similar protocol with the tribunal concerning the new urgent suspension power that this amendment would introduce. Discussions about this are planned between Ofsted and the tribunal in the near future.
I hope that noble Lords will support this important amendment to introduce a new safeguard for vulnerable children so that Ofsted inspectors can take timely and rigorous enforcement action in those rare instances where it is required. I beg to move.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
“Local authority’s duty to investigate: work with families
In section 47 of the Children Act 1989 after subsection (8) insert—“(8A) Where, as a result of complying with this section, a local authority conclude that a child may need to become looked after in order to safeguard and promote their welfare, the local authority must, unless emergency action is required, seek to identify and consider the willingness and suitability of any relative, friend of other person connected with the child, to care for them as an alternative to them becoming looked after by unrelated carers.””
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on Amendments 58 and 59 and leave Amendment 63 to my noble friend Lady Drake. I thank the Minister and his colleagues and team for all their efforts, letters and meetings on the issue of family and friends carers.
We discussed the benefits of children being raised with family or friends at some length in Committee. All I would say here is that there is clear evidence that children who cannot live with their parents and who live with family or friends do significantly better both socially and academically than those who live in other forms of care.
Local authorities are still not, as far as I know, conforming to the rules that they should. There is little support from local authorities. Sometimes there is misinformation. This issue will not go away. I hope that the Minister will—I know that he will—take on board that family and friends carers deserve and need help and that we should listen to their concerns. I beg to move.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I am conscious of the late hour, but I rise to speak to Amendment 63, which addresses the need of kinship carers and their children by seeking to prevent a situation where the carer loses their job. We are addressing a care community of an estimated 300,000 children—not a minor group. Family members step in to avoid them being taken into care. Kinship care, as we know, is by far the most common way of providing permanence and stability for children who can no longer live with their parents.
We have rehearsed these arguments many times. Yet, we know, in spite of the key role that kinship carers play, that they get too little help. As a society we depend on kinship carers to protect so many vulnerable children, but we reciprocate by giving them limited support. Yet the children being raised with kinship carers can have experienced similar adversities to those in the care system; they have been through trauma or tragedy, they have multiple needs and they need time to settle with their carers, who themselves are required to attend a plethora of meetings related to the children’s needs.
However, as we know, those carers have no statutory right to any form of adjustment leave to settle the children. With no give in the employment system, many kinship carers are forced to give up work in order to do what is right for the children. The aim of this amendment is to bring kinship carers into employment protection through a statutory entitlement to a period of unpaid adjustment leave when taking on the care of the child. Not only in this Bill but in other recent Bills we have extended or are extending the rights to statutory leave of other carers and approved adopters, but consistently we give little or no statutory support to kinship carers and the key role that they play.
We see an incongruity in the Government’s position. In the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, when again the arguments about the key role of kinship carers were rehearsed, the Government, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Freud, accepted that friends and kinship carers undertook a valuable role in protecting vulnerable children, which often requires them to give up employment, and agreed that kinship carers in receipt of benefits should be exempt from work conditionality for 12 months. However, when it comes to employment protection and continued labour market participation by kinship carers, we see the incongruity. It would not always be necessary for a kinship carer to lose their job if they had a period of adjustment leave, and many would remain in the labour market if they had such leave, which may well improve the life outcomes for them and their children. So we face a situation where the Government recognise the challenges facing kinship carers in the welfare system but are reluctant to do so in the employment system. In effect, the DWP understood the issue and acted, but BIS remains reluctant.
I acknowledge that in Committee on 22 November the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, recognised the extremely valuable contribution made by family and friends carers in caring for children who cannot live with their parents, and I acknowledge that the Government have advised that the department will conduct research into the labour market attachment of kinship carers. The helpful letter of 23 January from the noble Viscount again acknowledges the important role played by these carers, and confirms that he is,
“keen to ensure that their needs are considered as soon as possible”.
However, the problems that I have referred to—albeit briefly, because of time—exist now, and I fear that following the passage of the Bill they may fall into the long grass. I am anxious that “as soon as possible” should not be a long timeline. The noble Viscount also indicated in his letter that the information required for the broader review of the shared parental leave and pay provisions to which he had committed is unlikely to be available until 2018, but that he wishes to work to a much earlier timeline for considering the needs of family and friends carers for adjustment leave.
I have three questions for the Minister. Am I correct in my understanding of the letter of 23 January that the Government wish to work to a much speedier timeline? Could the Minister give an indication of how soon he thinks the issue of labour market attachment and adjustment leave for kinship carers can be addressed? Notwithstanding the urgent need for adjustment leave provision for kinship carers, could he also agree to include family and friends carers in the broader review of parental leave and pay provisions that the Government have committed to? This would allow for a more holistic and comprehensive review of childcare leave provisions. To exclude family and friends carers from that wider review would leave a key and potentially growing area of caring for children—kinship care—untouched and unreviewed. I look forward to a positive reply from the Minister to those three questions.
I shall end by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, who put it so well in Committee when she said that,
“it is, frankly, almost embarrassing to think about the disadvantage that kinship carers suffer when they take on this responsibility and often—most likely, I would say—produce much better results for those children”.—[Official Report, 20/11/13; col. GC 450.]
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I hope it has been very clear that this side of the House strongly supports the main thrust of the measures in this part of the Bill in relation to parental leave, and we do not want to do anything to withhold any form of approval for what is happening. We have tried to express our support for that. The amendments tabled today are a reflection of two things. First, that the broad thrust of the way in which the Government have taken forward this agenda is exactly as we would like to see it. Indeed, I might almost say that they have done a little bit more than we would have considered had we been in power and had to take forward this responsibility. Secondly, in so doing they have thrown into sharp relief a number of areas in which measures could be taken which would level up kinship carers to the position that is now being adopted for parental leave.
I sympathise with the Minister responding to the debate, but we should reflect on the fact that, during the passage of the Bill, we have moved from the original position we found ourselves in when we opened up discussions on this part, which was that nothing could be done in this area, to a situation where a number of reviews and considerations of particular issues are now taking place. The purpose of these amendments is to invite the Minister to reflect upon and read into the record the decisions that he has been able to reach in relation to kinship and friendship care, some of which were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Drake, and to ask him whether he will use this opportunity to reflect a little more on the gaps that remain.
I do not think it would require a lot to do the sort of work required, but the important point, as has just been said, is to get some sense of the timescale, so that those who might not be given first priority this time round have something to look forward to so that they can work towards a better achievement of the objectives that they want, particularly in the areas that we have just been talking about.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I intend to keep my remarks as brief as possible while aiming to respond effectively to the substance of the amendments.
Noble Lords will remember our discussions on this very important area of support for family and friends carers during Grand Committee. I welcome this debate and reaffirm our commitment to supporting kinship and friendship care. I appreciate the broad support for these measures from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and Members opposite. I commend the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Drake, on their tireless work in this area.
Where family and friends carer policies are applied effectively, the aims expressed in Amendments 58 and 59 will already be met. For this reason, the Government have in place a programme of work to improve the practice of professionals in this area. It is our belief that the key issue in this area is improving quality of practice on the ground rather than changing the legislation which already exists for this group of carers.
First, on Amendment 58, it is already a requirement of the Children Act 1989 that local authorities should support the upbringing of children by their families wherever possible if the child cannot return to live with the birth parents and if it is the most appropriate way to safeguard and promote their welfare. This legislative position is re-enforced by Volume 1 of the Children Act 1989 statutory guidance, which outlines that the local authority should have,
“considered family members and friends as potential carers at each stage of its decision making”.
That guidance is currently being revised to reflect the legislative changes in this Bill and to align it with the new Public Law Outline. The revised version will include strengthened content on good pre-proceedings practice and will re-emphasise the importance of early work with families. It will also provide information on the key elements of good pre-proceedings practice and the use of family group conferences.
I know that officials in the Department for Education have been in regular contact with interested parties, including the Family Rights Group, during the drafting of this guidance and have listened carefully to their concerns. A working group made up of expert practitioners, including directors of children’s services and social workers, has also been formed to act as a critical friend to the department and comment on early drafts. The guidance will be published for public consultation in mid-February and we would welcome any further views from noble Lords as part of that process.
The Government remain committed to the use of interventions at the pre-proceedings stage, which is why we are now funding the rollout of an accreditation scheme of family group conferences and the further use of this service at the pre-proceedings stage. Practice in this area will be monitored and inspected by Ofsted under the new single inspection framework for children’s services, which is designed to assess local authority practice and decision-making at all stages of a child’s journey.
On Amendment 59, we have discussed at length the valuable contribution of family and friends carers and it was with that in mind that in March 2011 we issued statutory guidance for local authorities on families and friends who are carers. That guidance makes it clear that wider family members should receive appropriate support to bring up a child in their care, regardless of whether those children are looked after by a local authority or not:
“The range and level of family support services which may be provided under section 17 is wide … As well as practical support, family and friends carers may need advice, guidance or counselling about how to manage issues such as those arising from contact or from caring for children with emotional or behavioural difficulties due to their earlier experiences. Such services may be provided by local authorities to support both formal and informal family and friends care arrangements”.
Therefore, non-looked-after children can already be included in such care arrangements under Section 17 of the 1989 Act. The 1989 Act does not impose a limit on the amount of support which may be provided under that section.
As I mentioned earlier, we are aware that the quality and quantity of local authority policies is not always at the level it should be. That is why we currently have a programme of work to reduce the variation in practice within and across local authorities. The Department for Education will continue to look at the barriers to implementing the policies and will be looking to take forward work that clarifies the role of the local authority and the importance of good support systems for this group of carers.
We understand that many family and friends carers could do with extra help with the parenting of these children, particularly when dealing with children with behavioural problems. That is why the Department for Education continues to fund initiatives like the Keep programme, which is a group programme which provides family and friends carers and mainstream foster carers with specialist training and support.
While we agree that support and services are sometimes not of the quality that they should be for family and friends carers, we feel that improvements need to be made not by changing current legislation but, as I said earlier, by improving practice on the ground. We will improve the lives of these dedicated and inspirational carers by empowering them to have the information they need to ask for services when they need them and by ensuring that each local authority is aware of their responsibility and has the tools to deliver it. That is exactly what our current programme of work aims to accomplish.
Finally, on Amendment 63, I fully understand the sentiment behind what is proposed, but it is essential that we take the time fully to understand how becoming a kinship or friendship carer affects an individual’s labour market attachment before proposing policy interventions. For this reason, I announced in Grand Committee that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will lead a research project into those issues. Officials met recently with the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Drake, and representatives from a number of interested organisations such as Grandparents Plus and the Family Rights Group to discuss these issues, and I know that the officials found that very useful.
We will hold a further research scoping event for relevant stakeholders in the coming weeks to gain a fuller understanding of the issues and research challenges and to harness the extensive knowledge and expertise of these organisations. I hope that we will continue to build on these productive discussions and that noble Lords will encourage interested parties to attend the scoping event. It is essential that we properly understand the labour market issues faced by these individuals before deciding whether further policy interventions aimed at strengthening labour market attachment may be the most effective intervention. The research that I have outlined will help government to gain a better understanding of the evidence base, which is the important first step that is needed.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, raised at least three questions, and I will write to her to answer them. However, on the point about timing, this is a very urgent matter, but it will depend on the scoping nature of that research. I will write to her on that point, but I want to clarify that we on this side regard this as an urgent matter and will endeavour to move as fast as we possibly can.
In the mean time, I hope that I have given noble Lords sufficient reassurance that the Government are committed to supporting family and friends carers. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his complete response. I appreciate that all the questions cannot be answered this evening. My noble friend and I look forward to further correspondence and to receiving further information about the review.
Baroness Northover
“Provision of free school lunches
(1) The Education Act 1996 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 512ZB (provision of free school lunches and milk at maintained schools)—
(a) in subsection (2)(a) after “subsection (4)” insert “or (4A) (or both)”, and(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) A person is within this subsection if the person—
(a) is a registered pupil at a maintained school or pupil referral unit in England, and(b) is in reception, year 1, year 2 or any other prescribed year group at the school.(4B) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the following to be treated as persons within subsection (4A)—
(a) registered pupils, or any description of registered pupils, at a maintained nursery school in England;(b) children, or any description of children, who receive relevant funded early years education, or any description of such education, in England.(4C) In subsection (4A)—
“maintained school” means—
(a) a community, foundation or voluntary school, or(b) a community or foundation special school;“reception” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 5;
“year 1” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 6;
“year 2” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 7;
“year group” means a group of children at a school the majority of whom will, in a particular school year, attain the same age.”;
(c) in subsection (5), after ““prescribed”” insert “, “relevant funded early years education””.(3) After section 512A insert—
“512B Provision of school lunches: Academies
(1) Academy arrangements in relation to an Academy school or an alternative provision Academy must include provision imposing obligations on the proprietor that are equivalent to the school lunches obligations.
(2) “The school lunches obligations” are the obligations imposed in relation to maintained schools and pupil referral units in England by—
(a) section 512(3) (provision of school lunches on request), and(b) section 512ZB(1) (provision of free school lunches to eligible persons). (3) Academy arrangements in relation to an Academy (other than a 16 to 19 Academy) that are entered into before the date on which section (Provision of free school lunches)(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 comes into force are to be treated as if they included the provision required by subsection (1), to the extent that they do not otherwise include such provision.”
Baroness Northover
My Lords, in September last year the Government announced their intention that all children attending state-funded schools in England in reception, year 1 or year 2 should be offered a free school lunch. Amendment 59ZA places a duty on all such schools to provide lunches to those children and also provides a power for the Secretary of State for Education to extend that provision to other age groups by order, subject to decisions by future Governments and the will of Parliament.
We know from pilot schemes in Durham and Newham, which commenced under the previous Government in 2009 and concluded under this one in 2011, that the provision of universal free school meals has the potential to deliver considerable benefits for children, and particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
One of the most striking positive effects demonstrated by the pilots was the impact of universal free school meal provision on educational outcomes. Independent evaluation showed that pupils were on average two months ahead of their peers in English and maths and that these improvements were most marked among children from less affluent families. Noble Lords may wish to note that these improvements were not reflected in a third pilot area, where free school meal entitlement was extended to more pupils but not offered to all children.
Other benefits demonstrated by the pilots included higher take-up rates of free school meals, including among that the group of pupils who had previously been eligible for a free school meal but had not taken one. This is important: we know, due in large part to the good work done under the previous Government, that school meals are far more likely to meet good nutritional standards than the packed lunches that children bring to school. Offering all infants a healthy lunch will allow schools to play their part in helping children to develop long-term healthy eating behaviours.
Noble Lords will also be interested to know that the pilots demonstrated certain social benefits. Universal free school meals help to engender a culture where children sit down to eat with classmates and teachers in a civilised environment. Shared mealtimes are a natural training ground for learning to talk, behave, take turns, be polite and share. The pilots showed that a universal approach was valued by parents and staff for building a school community and sense of cohesion and increasing equality and fairness.
We will support schools in introducing this. In his autumn Statement my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that over a billion pounds of new revenue funding would be allocated to this policy between 2014 and 2016. In addition, the Government confirmed that £150 million of capital funding would be provided by the Department for Education in 2014-15 to improve kitchen and dining facilities in schools.
Subsequently, the Department for Education has confirmed more details of how this funding will be allocated, including that special provision will be made in 2014-15 to assist small schools to implement this policy. The department will also, shortly, announce details of a comprehensive package of implementation support and advice to be targeted at schools that might be expected to find delivering this policy most challenging.
Head teachers need to know that the Government are as committed to this policy as we expect them to be. That is why we have concluded that this amendment is necessary to provide both certainty and confidence, so that head teachers can plan ahead.
This policy has been widely welcomed across the school food sector, by trade unions and by other stakeholders, including the Children’s Society. I appreciate the favourable comments from the noble Baroness opposite and from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on the Cross Benches. We spoke to them about introducing the amendment at this stage and we appreciate their support in this. I am very pleased to put this amendment forward. I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chairman of the Institute for Food, Brain and Behaviour. I entirely accept what the Minister said about the value of nutrition. For two or three years we have conducted work in a secondary school in Dagenham. That work is about to be published and shows the value of correct nutrition on not just the educational awareness of children but also on their behaviour. We would be very happy to share this research with the Minister and her officials.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the amendment and the Minister has underlined the case for it. I have two questions. What will be done to monitor the effects of the new provisions with a view to considering whether to extend them to other age groups, as the proposed new clause would allow, and what criteria will be used in considering whether to extend them? Will the Minister explain what the implications will be for the pupil premium, because eligibility for the funding of it is tied to free school meal eligibility, and if free school meal eligibility is being extended in this way does this mean that the pupil premium will also be extended?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I welcome the amendment and welcome the coalition, belatedly, to the table of the free school meals cause.
As I told the Minister the other day, I am an inaugural member of the School Food Trust, set up by Labour after Jamie Oliver’s turkey Twizzler scandal. Therefore, I do not need to be persuaded of the importance of this announcement. When I was thinking how I might respond to this debate, I was initially tempted to run back through the history of this initiative, not least the Government’s early decision to cut the funding of the School Food Trust and the associated rollout of the nutritional standards. However, in the circumstances I felt that this was rather churlish. However the transformation of policy came about, it is absolutely the right thing to do. I agree with the Minister that it will bring health, educational and social benefits to this group of children. It will, I hope, teach them good eating habits which will stay with them and encourage them to continue eating nutritional school lunches in later years. It will also provide considerable savings to hard-pressed families who would otherwise have to pay for these meals.
The challenge now is to make sure that the policy is implemented successfully for September, and I very much hope that the Children’s Food Trust is able to play a major role in assisting that rollout. There will obviously be different challenges for different schools to adapt their kitchens and dining spaces to meet the new demand. I hope that schools, and particularly head teachers, embrace this challenge positively and do not try to cut corners. The school lunch has the capacity to be at the heart of the school’s community and brings a wealth of other benefits as well. I very much hope that in a short period the policy will justify itself. I am pleased that the amendment allows scope for extending the age group via secondary regulation in due course, and I am pleased to support the amendment.
Baroness Northover
I thank noble Lords for their welcome for this proposal. I look forward to hearing the report from Dagenham. The department will be very interested in that trial. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that pupil premium funding will not be affected by the introduction of universal school meals for infant pupils. In particular, the funding for the next financial year 2014-15 is informed by school census data collected in the January 2014 school census. This census is taking place prior to the introduction of universal infant free school meals. In subsequent years, we will be gathering the same data in the school census on the number of pupils whose families are in receipt of the relevant benefits that currently entitle the children to a free school meal. This information will be used to allocate pupil premium funding, as well as other deprivation-related school funding.
In terms of evaluating the impact of this policy, it will obviously be carefully monitored. The universal free school meals pilot provided a full and compelling evaluation of the benefits and challenges of the policy, as I have just laid out. We will be measuring the take-up of lunches via the school census and are sure that others will want to measure the specific benefits arising from this policy.
There are currently no plans to extend the universal free school meals eligibility to further age groups. It will be for future Governments to decide whether they want to do so. However, we thought that it was important, while we were asking Parliament to consider legislating on the principle of this, to include an enabling power to give future Governments the flexibility to extend the policy using secondary rather than primary legislation. This of course will still be subject to the will of Parliament.
I think that I have covered everything, although I am not sure whether I have covered all the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. If I have not, then, given the hour, I will write to noble Lords. Once again, I thank your Lordships very much for their welcome of this policy.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
“Independence of the Children’s Commissioner
In Schedule 1 to the Children Act 2004, in paragraph 1 (status) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) The Secretary of State shall not undermine the Children’s Commissioner’s independence and shall ensure that the Children’s Commissioner is under as few constraints as reasonably possible in determining—
(a) the Commissioner’s activities,(b) the Commissioner’s timetables, and(c) the Commissioner’s priorities.””
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, in moving Amendment 59A, I also wish to support Amendments 59B and 59F, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will mainly speak. I want to make three very quick points about the Children’s Commissioner. One is about human rights, one is about the commissioner’s powers and one is about his appointment.
I thank the Minister and his team for investigating the concerns expressed in Committee and for his helpful and clear letter. We are particularly grateful that the Government have now published the framework agreement between the Department for Education and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.
The introduction of that framework contains a statement on the independence of the Children’s Commissioner and the overarching principles. However, neither the framework nor the Minister’s letter contain the UN affirmation that national human rights institutions such as the Office of the Children’s Commissioner should clearly state that members and staff of such bodies,
“will not receive instructions from government ministers or other public officials, directly or indirectly”.
I do not see the issue of prohibition directly spelled out in the letter or the framework.
Secondly, I realise that the commissioner still does not have the power under the Human Rights Act to deliver on individual cases. I understand the reason for that: it would be an impossible task. However, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, with which I agree, seeks to draw attention to particular groups with specific problems—for example, children in custody, unaccompanied migrants and trafficked children. In other words, it is about children who are living without their parents—a particularly vulnerable group. I shall leave the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to elaborate on that but I have my own concerns.
My third concern relates to the appointment of the Children’s Commissioner. I hope that the appointment will be independent of political bias. It requires someone who has strong experience of working with children and children’s services in the voluntary sector and who understands the wide scope involved in dealing with all kinds of children, particularly vulnerable children, at a national and local level. The person who is appointed, whoever he or she might be, must command the respect of the children’s sector. I know that Parliament, children’s charities and children’s services will follow this appointment keenly to ensure that they are fulfilling all the demands that they have to fulfil. I beg to move.
Lord Ramsbotham
I am grateful to the Minister for his letters and the draft framework agreement in which I note that the Children’s Commissioner is classified as a non-departmental public body and that it is for the commissioner to determine what activities to undertake in carrying out his or her primary function. I am therefore glad to see that the provisions that currently allow the Secretary of State to direct the commissioner’s work are to be repealed but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I do not feel completely confident about the appointment process. That is why I have added my name to her Amendment 59A, to which she has spoken so comprehensively.
Turning to my Amendments 59B and 59F, the aim of Amendment 59B is twofold. First, it is to ensure that the expectation of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child that all children’s commissioners shall have the power to bring and intervene in court cases to ensure that children’s rights are respected is made explicit in the Bill. Legal cases can be complex, lengthy, expensive, intimidating and distressing for children, who are often unable or unwilling to take action themselves. In addition, courts are likely to be even less accessible to children following cuts to legal aid and proposals for further reform of legal aid and judicial review.
The second purpose is to put the commissioner on an equal footing with the Equality and Human Rights Commission in being able to bring cases under the main legal protection for children in this country, the Human Rights Act. It should not be presumed that the commissioner will automatically take up every case but it will be up to him or her to decide which ones to pursue.
Amendment 59F would expand on the list of those groups of children currently under the remit of the Office for the Children’s Rights Director to whom the Children’s Commissioner must provide advice and assistance. At present, Clause 86 prohibits the commissioner from providing advice and assistance to children living away from home or receiving social care who are not within the group defined in Clause 93. As I have seen all too often, there is considerable inconsistency in how children in custody or migrant children are looked after by those responsible for them. I have not had the same practical experience of trafficked children but, in view of their vulnerability and possible legal needs, it would be invidious to leave them out of this proposed addition.
Finally, more generally, as the Bill has progressed—and particularly in relation to the best endeavours rather than duties that the Government expect to be sufficient demand on local authorities and others to ensure delivery of EHC plans and other SEN provision—I see the need for an informed, independent monitor to ensure that those best endeavours are resulting in what the Government expect. As I have said previously, the code of practice is full of “musts” without being specific about how a “must” is to be implemented or overseen. I suggest that the role of overseer of best endeavours and musts is a natural addition to the responsibility of the Children’s Commissioner, being entirely in line with new Sections 2(1) and 2(3)(a) of the Children Act set out in Clause 86. New Section 2(1) states:
“The Children’s Commissioner’s primary function is promoting and protecting the rights of children in England”.
New Section 2(3)(a) states:
“In the discharge of the primary function the Children’s Commissioner may, in particular … advise persons excising functions or engaged in activities affecting children on how to act compatibly with the rights of children”.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I rise partly to support my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but primarily to use the opportunity to thank the Minister for listening to what was said in Grand Committee and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights—up to a point. With regard to Amendment 59C, I fear that we are still talking past each other. The Joint Committee on Human Rights amendment, which I moved in Grand Committee, was not intended to provide an exhaustive definition of children’s rights, as the noble Lord suggested in his letter to my noble friends Lady Hughes and Lady Jones on 22 January. The purpose was to include the UNCRC rights explicitly in the statutory definition of children’s rights for the purposes of defining the Children’s Commissioner’s primary functions. But I do not wish to be churlish, and therefore I welcome this unexpected concession.
I also strongly welcome the publication before Report of the updated framework agreement between the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the department, and even more because it incorporates the changes recommended by the JCHR and includes a clear statement of the commissioner’s independence. I welcome, too, the amendments designed to strengthen children’s participation.
I hope that the Minister will be able to go one step further, as asked for by my noble friend and the noble Lord, and strengthen the powers and independence of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner just that little bit more.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I support Amendment 59A and I also strongly support Amendments 59B and 59F. I address this from the viewpoint of the children themselves. Children and young people care about the independence of the Children’s Commissioner and support the proposal to prevent any interference by government as set out in Amendment 59A.
In a briefing put together by young people in partnership with Save the Children, they say quite rightly that the commissioner is for them and that it is important that the Government listen to their views on the issue of independence. The young people understand the importance of the commissioner being free to do his job properly. In particular, they are worried about future Governments interfering in the commissioner’s work. Mohamed, aged 16, said:
“If the Commissioner’s full independence is not clearly set in stone then a new Government would be able to change its mind … If it’s not [written down in law] it could change in a few years-time. Even if the Children’s Commissioner has the freedom now to do what they think is right, there’s no guarantee it wouldn’t change”.
So young people are concerned that without this amendment, children may think that the commissioner is not a proper champion of their views and rights, and they may not put their trust in the commissioner.
Young people say that without a fully independent champion, children could grow up to feel disengaged from their community and local and national politics. Najib, aged 12, said:
“If the children’s commissioner isn’t completely independent then young people will feel like they don’t have a voice. When they grow up they may not have the confidence to speak out and join in as they’ve felt that no one has listened to them when they were growing up”.
I hope very much that the Minister will consider young people’s views on this issue and I very much support the proposal brought forward on this by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey.
Lord Nash
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey, Lady Lister and Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for their contributions. I will speak to the government amendments in more detail shortly, but I would first like to respond to Amendment 59A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and Amendments 59B and 59F tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for focusing our attention on the key issue of the independence of the Children’s Commissioner. As I stressed during the debate in Committee, in order for the Children’s Commissioner to have credibility with children and children’s organisations, and to meet international standards, we fully recognise that the commissioner needs to be—and be seen to be—acting independently from government. That is why we are removing a number of provisions in the existing legislation that call into question the commissioner’s independence, as recommended by John Dunford following his review. As a result, there is nothing in the legislation that allows the Government to determine what the commissioner’s priorities are, what activities he or she will undertake, or what timescales he or she will work to—these are all matters for the commissioner.
During the debates in Committee, both here and in the other place, the Minister for Children and Families and I provided reassurances on the process for appointing the commissioner, and on providing the commissioner with a sufficient budget. I am happy to repeat them again today. The Government fully recognise the need for the commissioner to be free from any political interference in carrying out his or her functions, and the arrangements in place to appoint the commissioner and provide him or her with a sufficient budget will ensure that this is the case.
I would like to reassure noble Lords that the commissioner’s appointment will be governed by the code of practice published by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which ensures that such appointments are made on the basis of merit, following a fair and open recruitment process. This ensures that only those candidates judged by the OCPA recruitment panel to be “appointable” can be put forward for Ministers’ consideration. Further, we have given commitments that Parliament will be provided with an opportunity to comment on the job description and person specification before the post is advertised, and an opportunity to hold a pre-appointment hearing before the appointment is confirmed.
On the framework agreement, as requested by noble Lords in Committee, I have made available a draft of the revised framework agreement that sets out the relationship between the commissioner and the Department for Education. As noble Lords will note, the revised framework agreement includes clear statements about the commissioner’s independence from government.
Noble Lords will also note that, as requested by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the draft framework agreement includes changes that mirror those made to the framework agreement between the Equality and Human Rights Commission and its sponsor department—changes that seek to ensure that the impact of public sector efficiency controls do not unreasonably constrain the commissioner’s independence.
I now turn to Amendment 59B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which seeks to add, “initiating and intervening in legal proceedings”, to the non-exhaustive list of activities that the commissioner may undertake in the exercise of his or her primary function, as set out in proposed new Section 2(3) of the Children Act 2004, inserted by Clause 86. During the debates in Committee, I said that initiating or intervening in legal proceedings was, in the Government’s view, implicit within the commissioner’s primary function. The commissioner has intervened in legal proceedings on a number of occasions under the current legislation, and there is nothing in this Bill that changes that position.
As now, if the Office of the Children’s Commissioner wanted to bring legal proceedings, it would fall to the judge in the individual case to determine whether the commissioner had “sufficient interest” in the matter. However, the fact that the Children’s Commissioner will have a statutory role to promote and protect children’s rights, suggests that the commissioner would have a sufficient interest in any matter before the courts where children’s rights were involved. The question is not, therefore, whether it is possible for the commissioner to initiate or intervene in legal proceedings, but whether it is desirable to emphasise this aspect of the commissioner’s remit explicitly on the face of the Bill.
There are a number of reasons why I do not wish to do that. First, we have avoided adding to the list, in proposed new Section 2(3), of activities that are already implicit within the commissioner’s primary function. Secondly, while I agree that the commissioner should, in certain circumstances, be able to bring matters before the courts, I share John Dunford’s view that a decision by the Children’s Commissioner to initiate legal proceedings should not be taken lightly. We would expect any commissioner to use this power sparingly, given the range of functions and issues in which the commissioner is likely to take an interest, and in the light of his or her responsibility to make effective use of public funding.
Lord Ramsbotham
I am sorry to delay proceedings, but can the Minister, in the light of what he has just said, assure me that an incoming commissioner will at least be made aware of that provision, and that the assurance that he has just given to the House will be repeated in that briefing?
Lord Nash
I am delighted to give that assurance to the noble Lord. Thirdly, including an explicit reference to initiating and intervening in legal proceedings would raise expectations that the commissioner will take up legal challenges on behalf of any individual or group who brings a matter to the commissioner’s attention. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner is clearly not resourced to operate in that way, and it could end up wasting time defending decisions not to take up particular cases.
I turn now to Amendment 59F, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which would add categories of children—–namely, children in custody, children who have been trafficked and unaccompanied migrant children—to the definition at new Section 8A, which is inserted by Clause 93. In the Government’s view, it is not possible to define precisely in legislation every interaction that the commissioner and his or her staff might have with children; nor would we want to. What the legislation seeks to do, therefore, is to put down some clear markers that are designed to achieve particular objectives.
First, as noble Lords will be aware, there is a provision that prevents the commissioner investigating individual cases. This is specifically to avoid the commissioner getting swamped with individual casework at the expense of his or her strategic role. John Dunford’s report was clear that where commissioners had taken on a full ombudsman’s role, it had reduced their impact.
Secondly, as recommended by John Dunford, we have included provisions in the legislation that ensure, as far as possible, that the support provided to children within the Children’s Rights Director’s remit can and will continue under the new arrangements. Beyond that, we do not wish to try to enshrine in legislation what level of support the commissioner should provide to individual children who may contact the commissioner or his or her staff. It is inevitable, as now, that children will contact the commissioner through, for example, the OCC’s website. Where they do, we of course expect the commissioner to offer appropriate help.
In many cases, that help would involve signposting the child to information or support. In others, it would involve helping the child to access an existing complaints or advocacy service, while in other cases it may involve the commissioner providing support that is similar to the “advice and assistance” function that the CRD currently provides. Ultimately, if the commissioner felt that the child’s case highlighted a matter of wider strategic importance, he or she could conduct an investigation into that issue. Our view, therefore, is that it should be for the commissioner to determine what level of support to provide to children when they approach him or her. That is why we do not wish to describe how the commissioner should interact with children in legislation, beyond the two exceptions mentioned earlier.
I do not therefore believe that it is necessary to extend the definition at Section 8A to include the groups of children that the noble Lord proposes. The commissioner will have wide-ranging functions and powers to give him or her the flexibility to support children as he or she deems appropriate in the exercise of the primary function of promoting and protecting children’s rights. Many of those children will, in fact, already be covered by Section 8A because they are living away from home and/or are in receipt of local authority services. For example, children on remand to youth detention accommodation are treated as looked-after children.
For children in custody, there are already adequate complaints, grievance and disciplinary systems in place, which the noble Lord will be familiar with, in young offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes to enable young people to resolve issues relating to their detention. Advocacy services are also provided in YOIs, STCs and SCHs to assist young people in navigating the complaints, grievance or disciplinary systems. Advocacy is provided by Barnardo’s in young offender institutions and secure training centres, with local arrangements in place in secure children’s homes. If a young person is not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint, they are able to refer the issue to the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, the statutory monitor or the local authority.
Not extending the advice and assistance role to children in custody does not mean that the commissioner cannot investigate matters within the juvenile secure estate as part of a wider investigation. In fact, the commissioner has already done so—for example, with the commissioner’s inquiry into the support available in the youth justice system for young people with mental health issues. So far as the Children’s Commissioner looking at new SEN support in custody is concerned, the key plank of these reforms is to make it clear that the Secretary of State cannot direct the Children’s Commissioner. However, if he or she wishes to consider the SEN reforms, he or she is of course able to do so.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very thorough response. I am particularly pleased to hear that he says that there will be “particular regard” to the UNCRC and that there will be consultation with children enshrined in the law.
On the query about “affirmation on independence” and the lack of “prohibition”, maybe we should look at the wording. Maybe it is just a matter of words, but it is not how I read it in the first place. I accept that the Children’s Commissioner cannot realistically cope with individual cases. That would be far too big a burden and would, as the Minister said, “hamper” the effectiveness of the office. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will correct me if I am wrong, but he and I are saying that we see the Children’s Commissioner as a guardian and monitor of children’s rights as well as a champion. We shall see about the issue of the appointment. I hope that the Minister will take note of our concerns on this.
I forgot to ask the Minister about the timetable for this appointment; I do not know if he can reply now or write to me and other noble Lords.
(d) a summary of how the Commissioner has taken into account the results of any such consultation and anything else resulting from involving children in the discharge of his or her functions.”
“(3CA) Regulations may provide for a reduction in the duration of the maternity allowance period as it applies to a woman to be revoked, or to be treated as revoked, subject to prescribed restrictions and conditions.”
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I shall speak also to government Amendments 62B, 62C, 62D and 63A. I shall encapsulate my overview of the amendments in some very brief remarks. There is more that I could say and I am happy to write with more details should noble Lords feel it necessary.
The amendments will ensure that those who are entitled to statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance or statutory adoption pay are not left without these statutory payments in the event that they have opted into the shared parental system, are eligible to withdraw from that system and subsequently decide to do so. These are minor and technical amendments to enable the policy to operate in the way in which it was intended. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendments are necessary and desirable. I beg to move.
“(3D) Regulations may provide for a reduction in the duration of the maternity pay period as it applies to a woman to be revoked, or to be treated as revoked, subject to prescribed restrictions and conditions.”
“(2CA) Regulations may provide for a reduction in the duration of the adoption pay period as it applies to a person to be revoked, or to be treated as revoked, subject to prescribed restrictions and conditions.”
“Parental bereavement leave
In the Employment Rights Act 1996, after section 57A insert—“57AA Parental bereavement leave
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee who satisfies specified conditions—
(a) as to duration of employment, and(b) as to relationship with a child,to be absent from work on leave under this section in consequence of the death of a child.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) shall secure that, where an employee has a right to leave under this section, he or she is entitled to a leave period of at least 2 weeks.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) shall secure that an employee who exercises his or her right to leave under this section—
(a) is entitled, for such purposes and to such extent as may be prescribed, to the benefit of the terms and conditions of employment which would have applied if he or she had not been absent, (b) is bound, for such purposes and to such extent as may be prescribed, by any obligations arising under those terms and conditions (except in so far as they are inconsistent with subsection (1)), and(c) is entitled to return from leave to a job of a prescribed kind.(4) In subsection (3)(a) “terms and conditions of employment” includes—
(a) matters connected with an employee’s employment whether or not they arise under his or her contract of employment; and(b) terms and conditions about remuneration.”.”
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, in a few weeks, I will join families and children celebrating 20 years of the work of the charity Little Hearts Matter. The team provides advice, information and emotional support where a child has been born with half a heart, but the fact that we have surviving young people with us is significant. A little over 20 years ago, they all died. The survival of these young people is cause for celebration and recognition of the research, surgery and care developed over the years.
However, children continue to die because of the complexity of the condition, as they do with many other conditions. Many of our members who have lost their children due to complex congenital heart disease after a long struggle through treatment struggle thereafter because of the present regulations. There is little more devastating than the loss of your child. It creates emotional, mental and physical effects which overwhelm parents. To be told that you are entitled to only three days’ bereavement leave from your employer is neither caring nor supportive. There is much to organise and it cannot be good for the employer, as a bereaved parent is unlikely to be functioning at a normal level.
Let me briefly give two examples. The first concerns the father of a three year-old boy who died following complex surgery. The father had saved up his annual leave to be with his son through the surgery. After the operation, he stayed by his son’s bedside for two weeks as he slowly died. This used up all his leave. When his son died, the father rang his employer to explain and was told that he had to be back in three days. The funeral had not been organised at that point. The father lost his job because he could not return to work. He needed to be with his family.
In a second case, a father had known that his baby would be born with a complex heart condition. He had organised leave for the delivery and immediate surgical period, but his son died some weeks after the surgery. His employer told him that he had had enough leave and, as he had known his son was going to die, he would expect him back in three days having organised everything. His GP issued him a sick note to allow him more time to be with his wife, which his employer contested. The stress of fighting his employer, grieving for his son and supporting his wife created long-term illness.
Of course, this is not the whole story. There are many employers who support and help their employees through this difficult time but it is a lottery not a right. Relying on employers to be caring and supportive of their employees is clearly not enough. The law does not support the bereaved. With the increased recognition that parents have a right to be with their children after birth, it seems extraordinary that we do not extend the same thoughtfulness to parents who have lost a child. I realise that there might be nervousness that this could be a burden on business. Thankfully, the numbers affected are relatively small and we emphasise again that many employers act with compassion and sympathy and give time to their employees. However, where this is not the case, the impact on parents is huge.
This amendment would give the Government powers to regulate for statutory leave for bereaved parents. We hope this is reasonable—it allows the Government an opportunity to consult on the detail and to ensure the implementation is not burdensome but compassionate. It would make a huge difference to that small minority of parents who find themselves treated without compassion at some of the most difficult times of their lives. I beg to move.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for moving this amendment and for doing so so movingly. I am also grateful to the Minister for meeting with me last week to discuss this issue and, in particular, I am grateful to those who have been part of the campaign, led by Lucy Herd, for their support and for carrying on offering heartbreaking personal stories to illustrate the need for this measure.
Just today, Lucy received an e-mail that said:
“My only son died last Tuesday (7th Jan) and my company policy states that I only receive two days in compassionate leave, the rest has to come out of my annual leave allowance. I think it should be law for people who have lost an immediate family member to have as much time off as they need”.
Lucy also told me of Rhian, who had been in touch through Twitter. About a year after Lucy’s son Jack died, Rhian’s 18 month-old, George, choked on the food that his dad was feeding him at home. Sadly George died. His father was distraught but was given only two days’ compassionate leave by his employer. He committed suicide seven days later. Rhian has now lost her son and her husband. That is a particularly tragic story, but it is worth noting that 90% of parents who lose a child also suffer relationship breakdown. Many parents lose a partner as well as a child.
These stories and many more like them show there is a problem. I read out different examples in Committee, showing that the NHS can be a remarkably uncompassionate employer at times. Those at the top of these big organisations will be appalled at how their rules can sometimes be applied. I heard today of a middle-ranking employee of one of our big high street banks who rang his boss the evening that his wife died following an illness. His boss was very sorry but there was a vitally important meeting the next day and could he please make sure he was in by 6.30 am.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity to return to this important issue on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, has spoken passionately about this matter at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and again this evening. I have been deeply moved and saddened by the distressing accounts that I have heard of employees not receiving the support from their employers that they needed at such a difficult time. We have heard more tragic examples this evening from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, and the noble Lord, Lord Knight.
Losing a loved one is always a difficult experience. Losing a child must cause a grief that is beyond words. It is of course right that employees are able and feel comfortable to take time off to grieve in those awful circumstances. Grief is extremely personal, and everybody copes with the challenges that it brings in different ways. Individual employers are best placed to respond to the varied needs of grieving employees in a sensitive and appropriate way. Fortunately, as has been pointed out this evening, many employers are understanding and compassionate, enabling individuals to take all the time off that they need when they need it. However, as I acknowledged during Grand Committee, this is sadly not always the case.
At present, there is very little advice and support available to employers to help them to develop company policies or approaches to time off for bereaved employees. This lack of advice can mean that employers, particularly small employers who have no experience of bereavement in the workplace, are confronted with a situation that they do not know how to deal with. As a result, they may inadvertently fail to give their employees the compassion and support that they need at what is, we can all agree, a particularly vulnerable time.
The Government are committed to ensuring that employers have access to the right advice and information to facilitate good employment relationships with all their employees. When this issue was debated during Grand Committee, I gave a commitment that the Government would bring forward comprehensive guidance to support employers in meeting the needs of bereaved employees in the workplace. I am pleased to be able to announce today that ACAS has agreed to draw on its wealth of experience in workplace relations to develop guidance that will support employers in delivering their approach to bereavement. It is, of course, essential that we harness the knowledge and experience of expert organisations to get this guidance right so that it can support employers and employees in the most effective way. For this reason, ACAS will work in close partnership with Cruse, the leading national charity for bereaved people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and other expert organisations during the development and refinement of the guidance. The first round-table meeting with these organisations is scheduled for as soon as 5 February.
ACAS intends to road-test the draft guidance in a series of seminars with employers around the regions to ensure that the guidance is relevant and adds value. We expect the guidance to be published this summer and I encourage noble Lords who are in touch with organisations that have experience of these issues, and who would like to be involved in reviewing the draft guidance, to get in touch with my officials. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and I had conversations about this last week. This guidance will be comprehensive, covering the existing statutory entitlement to time off for dependants as well as providing advice and support about what is best practice in this area. It is essential that employers, as well as employees, are aware of the statutory provisions that are available. This will be made clear in the guidance.
As I mentioned, I recently met the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to discuss the Government’s approach to this issue and to understand better whether there is additional support that we could offer. I felt that we had a very productive discussion, during which he brought to my attention the fact that many of the parents who had reported being treated unsympathetically by their employers were, in fact, employed in the public sector. Since then, my department has made contact with employer groups in this sector, including NHS Employers and those in Civil Service employee policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, will be pleased to hear. We plan to work with them to develop and find ways of promoting the best practice guidance that ACAS will produce. We also intend to work with business stakeholders such as the CBI and the CIPD to ensure that this guidance reaches businesses and to encourage them to review their company policies accordingly.
Bereavement is a particularly sensitive issue and to be comprehensive, this guidance will need to cover a broad range of issues and situations. I am confident that the guidance produced by ACAS will be of excellent quality. I hope that this is some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. It is, however, essential that we keep the effectiveness of guidance and how it is being applied in the workplace under review. This is what the Government fully intend to do. I understand the sentiment behind this amendment, and I believe that it is important that all individuals are able to take time off to grieve when they suffer the loss of a loved one. However, I think that a flexible and sensitive approach, tailored to the needs of individual employees, is what is needed at such a difficult time. It is not feasible to legislate to accommodate the vastly different needs of individuals, which are often the result of different personal circumstances, family relationships and religious observations. For this reason I believe that guidance, combined with working with our key partners to encourage employers to adopt best practice in their workplaces, is the best approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, raised a number of questions and I will endeavour to write to him with answers, including the question that he raised on the linkage with the DWP. In the mean time, I hope that noble Lords are reassured by these commitments and will agree to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I believe we are deeply reassured and very grateful to the Minister. I am only sorry that I was not able to take part in the earlier discussions. As he knows, there were clashes with other discussions about other parts of the children Bill at which I had to be present. I have been in close touch with the noble Lord, Lord Knight. We are very reassured, indeed grateful, that this matter has moved at such speed. I am just grateful that I will be able to take back the news to the families I work with that something will happen and that we will not hear such tragic stories about families receiving no compassion at some of the most difficult times of their lives. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
“Review of care leave
The Secretary of State must, within the scheduled review of parental leave, make arrangements—(a) to conduct research into the current labour market outcomes of carers, and(b) assess the need for further types of leave arrangements for employees in the United Kingdom, in addition to those that currently exist, with a view to helping families combine care for a disabled child or adult with work, and(c) for a report on the outcome to be produced and published.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, in moving Amendment 63AZC, I return to this question because, when we debated it in Grand Committee, it was rather lost in the important debate on kinship care. The amendment does not ask for very much. It does not require the Government to introduce leave for workers with caring responsibilities for a disabled, ill or frail loved one; it simply calls for a review of the need for such arrangements. As Carers UK argues in a recent report making the case for carers’ leave:
“The evidence base for supporting working carers is growing, and it is compelling”.
More than 3 million people combine working with unpaid care for a loved one and the numbers are predicted to grow as the population ages. The danger is that, without the safety valve of a right to a few days’ leave a year, carers will either reduce their hours or give up paid work altogether. A Carers UK survey found that two in five carers who had already done so were around £10,000 to £20,000 a year worse off. The public expenditure cost of carers giving up paid work is estimated at £1.3 billion a year. A strong business case has also been made. As the task and finish group set up by Employers for Carers and the Department of Health states in its final report, that
“the issue of supporting carers to remain in work is not only a problem, but also an economic opportunity. Supporting carers to remain in work can bring considerable benefits to carers themselves, employers and the wider economy”.
In Grand Committee, the Minister referred to the existing right to request flexible working and to time off for emergencies. But these existing provisions, helpful as they are, do not cover the kind of situation that this amendment is designed to address. This is not about emergencies as such but for more everyday situations, such as taking someone to a medical appointment or looking after them on discharge from hospital or during chemotherapy. The leave also needs to be paid, if it is to be of real help. At present, all too often carers use up annual leave, which they probably need more than most. A combination of the stresses created by combining care and paid work and no holiday leave could be one burden too many.
Cross-national evidence shows that care leave in various forms is becoming increasingly common elsewhere. I will spare noble Lords the examples, given the lateness of the hour, but will simply say that we are in danger of becoming a laggard if we refuse even to start investigating the case for such leave.
In Grand Committee, I quoted from a moving statement made by Mr Christopher Jeffery, whose wife was told she was shirking when she took agreed time off to collect him from hospital. She ended up having a breakdown because of the total lack of support she received and Mr Jeffery told the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Carers that it made him feel like a burden to her. I applaud Mr Jeffery’s determination to campaign on behalf of carers generally to ensure they have a right to take time off and not be treated in the way that his wife was.
I also said that I believe we are at the beginning of the road of a campaign whose time has come. Common sense, the business case, social justice and plain compassion and human decency are all on its side. Moreover, so is public opinion. Nine out of 10 respondents to a Carers UK/YouGov survey last year supported a right to a short period of time off work to care.
I hope that the Minister will be able to take this modest amendment away and tidy it up in order to bring it back as a government amendment at Third Reading, or even simply give a commitment on the record to instigate such a review without delay. I say without delay because the amendment links the review with the one that we have already been promised into parental leave, but there is no reason why it should wait until that review is undertaken. The Minister has already helpfully committed the Government to a more immediate study of the labour market attachment of kinship and friendship carers of children. I am simply asking for a parallel study of carers’ labour market attachment and of the options available to support it through some form of leave provision.
For all the reasons that I have given, there is a degree of urgency about this. The Government have an opportunity here to take the credit for having opened the door to the implementation of carers’ leave. This Bill, together with the Care Bill, already marks an important step forward for carers’ rights. Let us now build on that and make it a real turning point. I beg to move.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, as the clock reads midnight, I will say very little in support of my noble friend’s excellent moving of this, as she says, modest amendment, except to say that going without any time off for possibly years on end may push carers to breaking point. When their leave runs out or they feel that they cannot cope any more, many employees feel that they have no choice but to give up work altogether. As one parent carer wrote:
“My current manager is very supportive within the leave/time off rules, but I have still struggled in the last 12 months, my leave has been used on reactive odd days/half days due to medical appointments & supporting my daughter’s condition & I only have a few days left for the next few months of my leave year so I worry that I will not have enough time & will be forced to give up work”.
A statutory entitlement to care leave would help many carers juggle their caring responsibilities with work in a sustainable and manageable way, making them more productive and less stressed, and saving businesses and the economy money in the long run.
It is a source of personal disappointment to me that, as my noble friend said, we are falling behind in international comparisons, given that carers in the UK have always been at the forefront. We have always been leaders in the recognition of carers, and successive Governments can take credit for that. It would be a great pity if we fell behind in this and did not keep up with international colleagues such as Australia, Belgium, Germany and Japan, which are all putting carers’ leave in place. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to agree to this amendment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
My Lords, very briefly indeed, I lend my support to this amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said when she moved it so eloquently, it is a modest amendment, asking for a review in this very important area.
I do not intend to detain the House any longer—other than to say that from 2017 the number of older and disabled people needing long-term care is predicted to outstrip the number of family members able to provide it. Given that, with an ageing population, we are expecting people to work for longer, they are also going to find themselves trying to care for longer, with more family members and loved ones with more, increasingly complex, long-term conditions. Against this backdrop, it is essential that we have the review that this amendment talks about and see what more we can do to help people who are trying to face the challenge of both working longer and caring longer.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, very briefly, I thought that both my noble friends made very coherent arguments in favour of this and raised some very important issues. We heard yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, that he was going to do some more work on parent carers, so obviously some of these issues around carers are already going to come back at Third Reading. There will be ongoing discussions around those issues and I therefore urge the Minister, perhaps in the context of those discussions, to widen it out a little more and consider the issues that have been raised in this amendment at the same time, so that we can bring all these issues back at Third Reading and have a full debate at that stage. I hope that he will consider that seriously.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I appreciated the interesting and moving speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Pitkeathley, and the brief intervention by my noble friend Lady Tyler focusing on the challenges that parents of disabled children and carers of disabled adults face in balancing their care responsibilities with their working lives.
Being a carer can have a significant impact on an individual’s life. The Government recognise that caring for an individual with a disability can be both physically and emotionally draining. Flexible and supportive working arrangements can make a significant difference to a carer’s life by ensuring that work does not add to the carer’s stress levels. This is why it is important that carers are able to adjust the way they work to allow them to stay in work, because work can be important for a carer’s well-being and income and for maintaining social contacts. As a nation, we cannot afford to lose the talent and skills of carers from the workplace. The Government recognise that caring for disabled people can be a sudden change for an individual. It may be challenging and take a great deal of commitment from an individual to deliver the care and support that is needed.
I reassure noble Lords that my department regularly collects and reviews data on carers to ensure that we are providing the right framework to allow them to participate and thrive in the labour market. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills conducts the workplace employment relations survey and the work-life balance series of surveys which look at the effectiveness of labour market participation policies, such as the right to request flexible working, in supporting carers. The Office for National Statistics also uses the census to analyse carers’ labour market experiences.
These surveys and the evidence they provide informed the recent report on carers from the cross-government task and finish group on carers. This report highlighted the importance of flexible working and recommended that government should continue to promote the benefits of flexible working to employers. All the recommendations of this report have been accepted and are currently being implemented. An additional duty on government to conduct this research and review the provisions for carers is unnecessary because this work is already under way and government regularly collects and reviews this information.
The Government’s approach is to create a fair, flexible and efficient labour market which supports and encourages participation from all. The strategy for carers is to ensure that we create the right framework to allow them to balance their work and caring responsibilities. Clause 113 requires the Government to review the effectiveness of the right to request flexible working against the policy objectives. Supporting carers to remain in work is a key objective of the policy, and I can confirm that this review will include assessing the effectiveness of the right to request flexible working in supporting carers to participate in the labour market.
I understand the noble Baronesses’ intentions behind this amendment, and I hope I have reassured them that the Government are acting to support carers of disabled children and adults to remain in work and are continually reviewing this support to ensure that it meets the needs of carers.
Just before I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment, I wish to change the tone slightly by stating that we have almost reached the end of Report, and on behalf of my noble friend Lord Nash, I will take this opportunity to thank everyone who has spoken today and during earlier sessions on Report. We have had many thoughtful, well informed and constructive debates on a very broad range of issues, and I have welcomed the thorough approach that noble Lords have taken to scrutinising each part of this wide-ranging Bill. I hope that we can address the very few outstanding issues. I also thank the Bill team and all the officials who have supported me, my noble friend Lord Nash and colleagues across different departments for their work.
In the mean time, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for speaking in support of this amendment at this extremely late hour. I am grateful to the Minister. I thought he made a rather compelling case for my amendment when he spoke about the importance of supporting carers. He talked about enabling them to participate and thrive, but the trouble is that the present situation does not enable them to participate and thrive. I was ultimately very disappointed by the Minister’s response because it is not about simply collecting statistics, but about having a formal, structured review of the case that other countries have now accepted. Therefore I will, of course, withdraw the amendment, but I suspect that it will not be the last amendment which tries to make this case; we will table such an amendment to any legislation that offers the opportunity to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) regulations under section (Application of Part to detained persons)(3),”
“(ba) regulations under subsection (6), (8), (9) or (10) of section (Regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products),(bb) regulations under subsection (11) of that section which amend, repeal or revoke any provision of an enactment within the meaning of that section,”
“(1A) Section (Contact between prescribed persons and adopted person’s relatives)—
(a) so far as it relates to England, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State appoints by order, and(b) so far as it relates to Wales, comes into force on such day as the Welsh Ministers appoint by order.”
“( ) Part 6 comes into force on 1 April 2014.”
“(3A) Section (Regulation of retail packaging etc of tobacco products) extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.”
(8) Subsection (7) does not apply to the repeal made by section (Extension of licensing of child performances to children under 14), which extends to England and Wales only.”