House of Commons

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

Monday 10 February 2014

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

1. What his policy is on the length of the school day; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

16. What plans he has to extend the school day.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I would like to see state schools offer a school day that is nine or even 10 hours long, enabling schools to provide character building, extra-curricular activities and homework sessions. I look forward to working with schools to ensure that they have access to the resources necessary to provide these activities.

[Damian Collins]

Does the Secretary of State agree that lengthening the school day in this way will give more children the chance to benefit from a greater breadth of studies—an opportunity that too often has fallen only to those who can afford to pay for it?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we need to do is close the unacceptable gap in attainment between those who are fortunate enough to have parents who can pay for them to be educated privately and those in the state sector. The very best state schools recognise that a longer school day with additional extra-curricular activities is just one way of ensuring that all our children can succeed.

[Mr Raab]

These plans would strengthen children’s education, ensure time for music, sport and other extra-curricular activities, ease the time pressure on teachers and help out working parents. I urge the Secretary of State not to allow the narrow vested interests of the unions to block the delivery of these plans.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These plans will ensure that a broader range of culturally enriching activities are available to young people. I am sure that the teaching unions will recognise that this is in their interests, and I hope they will embrace and support these changes.

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

I know the Secretary of State sees himself as a big beast at the Cabinet table championing educational reform, but is he aware that most of us who wish well for our education system want the big beast to be controlled by good information, good research and good evidence? What is the evidence for the longer school day?

[Michael Gove]

The evidence is there in the gap between, for example, the performance of independent fee-paying schools and state schools. If one looks at those children who get the best results at the end of primary school and what happens to those who go on to independent schools and those who stay in the state sector, one sees that at the moment those who go on to independent schools are more likely to get good GCSEs and A-levels. A longer school day is one of the ingredients that we believe will make a difference. Great state school heads—for example, Greg Martin at Durand academy—have already come out and explained why, in their schools, a longer school day definitely helps children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to catch up with their peers.

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

I support the Secretary of State’s wish that school nurseries extend hours beyond the statutory 15 hours a week. Is he aware, however, that 21 local authorities, including my own in Manchester, already provide full-time nursery provision, but that this is being put at risk by funding changes from his Department? Is this not another example of his actions failing to match his words?

[Michael Gove]

I am delighted that so many schools and local authorities provide additional hours, and I work with schools to ensure that more can do so. Where local authorities experience difficulties in ensuring that parents receive the support they need, I want to ask tough questions about the leadership of those local authorities to make sure that they devote the same amount of care, attention and resource to helping disadvantaged children as my Department does.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

On the basis that there is more to education than the classroom, will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has had with various organisations—scouts, guides, cadets and so on—on how a longer school day would impact on the out-of-school activities that our young people undertake?

[Michael Gove]

I would hope that our voluntary organisations will play a part in making sure that more young people can enjoy the sort of character-building activities that those organisations believe in. Many scout troops already work closely with schools, and cadets certainly are an integral part of the success of schools in the independent and state sectors. I want to do everything possible to ensure that children can enjoy those activities, and, in particular, that children from disadvantaged backgrounds, who have not had the chance in the past, now have that opportunity.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

2. If he will take steps to ensure that schools stay open in adverse winter weather conditions.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

Our Department’s clear view is that head teachers should keep schools open during adverse weather conditions unless it is really not possible to do so. Our advice to schools makes it clear that they now have a great deal of flexibility to work creatively; for example, bringing together classes with teachers and volunteers working together.

[Mr Hollobone]

When schools are closed owing to adverse weather conditions, that has a knock-on effect on other public sector provision, as well as on small businesses, as parents who are unable to arrange alternative child care are unable to go to work themselves. For local authority schools, will the Minister make clear whether it is the responsibility of head teachers or the local authority, or a combination of both, that schools remain open?

[Mr Laws]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s views, and I know that he has taken a keen interest in this issue. It is a responsibility for all individual schools and head teachers to keep their schools open in adverse weather conditions. The Department has issued clear guidance. We are conscious that the unnecessary closure of schools causes disruption to children’s education, and to parents and to the economy.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I would like to thank the Minister—[Interruption.] No. 3, Mr Speaker. I was getting carried away.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential of mindfulness to improve education outcomes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

The new national curriculum sets out high expectations of what teachers should teach, but gives them much more flexibility over how to do it. Teachers have the freedom to try new approaches and do things differently in a way that benefits students. A longer school day would also enable schools to build confidence and resilience, as well as the core academic skills vital to success.

[Mr Speaker]

We can now enjoy the full benefit of the hon. Gentleman’s mindfulness.

[Chris Ruane]

I would like—once again—to thank the Minister for meeting me and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) last Monday to discuss mindfulness in education, and I would also like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the measurement of well-being, but what more can the Minister and her Department do to use mindfulness in education to raise educational attainment and improve student well-being?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for our excellent meeting last week, which I thought was very helpful. I have taken the research he put forward, and one of the Department’s education policy advisers is considering it in detail and examining the evidence. I note that 120 schools already participate in mindfulness programmes, and also that several Members of this House are using it to improve their performance.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

The early-years foundation stage framework makes it clear that by the time children reach the reception class at primary school, the majority of the school day should be spent in teacher-led activities, rather than child-initiated play. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that the framework is correctly interpreted by schools and that we do not continue to see the dominance, particularly in weaker primary schools, of so-called free-flow methods, which delay children being taught to read and entrench the attainment gap between those from wealthy and those from poorer backgrounds?

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. High-quality, teacher-led early-years education is vital to closing the gap between those on the lowest and those on the highest incomes. At the moment, when those children arrive at school, there is an 18-month vocabulary gap, which is why we are keen, and Ofsted has confirmed, that although there should be no decision about exactly what type of teaching takes place, it should be of a high quality and it should raise the attainment of children and close that gap before they arrive at school.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

When the Secretary of State opened the Krishna Avanti Hindu school in Leicester, he saw a room dedicated to yoga, meditation and mindfulness. Unfortunately, it was such a quick visit, he could not take advantage of its benefits. However, there is a proposal to open a secondary school, so would the Minister consider opening that school and perhaps making use of the benefits of such a room in any discussions that she or the Secretary of State might have with Ofsted?

[Elizabeth Truss]

That certainly sounds like an interesting invitation, although I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is very mindful in the Department for Education. There are a number of free schools pioneering these types of approach, and that is one of the reasons we give schools autonomy over how to teach—so that they can explore new and innovative ideas and new ways of delivering high-quality education.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree it is vital that schools have the freedom to choose which external programmes they adopt and have the flexibility to try novel approaches they believe might benefit their pupils overall?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the new national curriculum is much more flexible over how teachers teach. We want to see high attainment and high expectations. Also, a longer school day gives schools more freedom to explore different activities with children to help raise their resilience and confidence.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

4. What comparative assessment he has made of funding for sixth-form colleges and school sixth forms.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

The Government fund sixth-form colleges and school sixth forms using the same national funding formula—meaning that every child is treated the same—with extra support for the most disadvantaged.

[Ian Swales]

Most of the post-16 schooling for my constituents takes place at Prior Pursglove sixth-form college. I welcome the correction of the free school meal anomaly from this September, but will the Minister now correct the further anomaly that despite receiving significantly less funding, according to the Association of Colleges, sixth-form colleges are expected to pay VAT, but schools are not?

[Matthew Hancock]

Sixth-form colleges are funded on the same per pupil formula as every other school. They do pay VAT, and in return for that they have much more flexibility in their own borrowing. I recognise the campaign. Putting this anomaly right would cost £150 million, money that we do not have because of the enormous deficit left by Labour. I recognise the argument, but at present there is no money.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Given that money is short, why are the Government spending £63 million on around 1,500 students in nine 16 to 18 free schools—£40,000 per student—while cutting the money going to the 156,000 students in sixth-form colleges?

[Matthew Hancock]

The resource spending that supports sixth-formers is exactly the same per student in free schools, sixth-form colleges and school sixth forms. We have a national funding formula. Before this Government came to office, we did not have a national funding formula; we had different funding for different pupils. We think it is fairer to have the same funding per pupil for all students, and that is what we are doing.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The funding differential is being accentuated by very significant differences in funding grant around the country, negatively affecting the f40 authorities generally and the Cambridgeshire authority more than any other. How is my hon. Friend planning to put this right?

[Matthew Hancock]

That is exactly the sort of anomaly that we have put right by making sure that resource funding is exactly the same per student for 16 to 18-year-olds, no matter what type of institution or where in the country.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

One of the reasons for differential funding has been students who have experienced less education before they get to the sixth form than other students, perhaps because of illness, absence from school or being refugees, for example. The changes in funding for 18-year-olds in further education are hitting those people. What is the Minister going to do about it?

[Matthew Hancock]

As part of the per pupil funding, there is extra support for the most disadvantaged—for instance, those with learning difficulties or those who are care leavers. On the changes to funding for 18-year-olds, the evidence is clear that they are on average no more disadvantaged than the totality of 16 to 18-year-olds.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of pupils in academies and free schools.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of pupils in academies and free schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Results continue to improve more quickly in sponsored academies than in local authority maintained schools, at both primary and secondary level. Converter academies continue to outperform other schools and to achieve better inspection outcomes than maintained schools. Of the first wave of 24 free schools, three quarters have been rated outstanding or good.

[Mr Wilson]

The introduction of academies, free schools and university technical colleges into challenging areas in my constituency is lifting the performance of all secondary schools in those areas. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these schools perform well precisely because they have autonomy from local education authority control? Will he condemn any attempt to remove those freedoms?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right. It is the case that education outcomes are improving in Reading as a result of this Government’s changes. That is why it is so worrying that the spokesman for the Opposition told The Sunday Times this weekend that they would halt the free school programme. It would be a terrible reversal of the improvement in our children’s education.

[John Howell]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in academies and free schools make better progress than their peers in local authority maintained schools?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is right. The statistics bear him out. It is important, of course, to acknowledge that across the board our schools are improving—local authority schools, academies and free schools—but it is critically important to recognise at the same time that, particularly for disadvantaged children, academies are seeing fantastic results.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me and the many Brighton teachers who have been in touch with me that all sorts of things affect performance in our schools, including pupil-teacher ratios, selection and financial resources? Following his recent announcement that state schools should be more like private schools, if he will not or cannot even up the resources, will he at least summon up the academic rigour to compare like with like? There is plenty of evidence that state schools outperform private schools in many cases.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and had she been fortunate enough to join me at the London Academy of Excellence last week she would have seen a free school that is outperforming an independent school. The next time I have the opportunity to visit an outstanding academy or free school, I hope she will come with me to see what the state sector is capable of achieving to outpace and outperform the private sector.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Lyndale school in south Wirral is a very small but excellent school. It is not currently an academy and it is under threat of closure. One of the options for saving it involves it becoming an academy, so if parents and I can find a way to keep the school sustainable, will the Secretary of State stand ready to help us?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely; I very much enjoyed visiting the Wirral just two weeks ago, and I will do anything I can to work with the hon. Lady to help the children and teachers in that school.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State read the article in The Times Educational Supplement last week which challenged the PISA evidence about the relationship between greater autonomy and educational improvement.

[Michael Gove]

I have not caught up with last week’s Times Educational Supplement, but I enjoy reading it and I will look at that article. The evidence from PISA—both the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) and I agree on this—is very powerful in favour of greater autonomy for schools, but I shall look at any critique of that evidence in order to weigh it appropriately.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Given that he has previously been chastised by the UK Statistics Authority for abusing data, how confident is the Secretary of State that his claims about the improved performance of converter academies will stand up to independent scrutiny in future?

[Michael Gove]

I rely on the evidence with which I am presented by Ofsted, by league tables and by every possible measure, so I look forward to having the chance, whenever the hon. Gentleman wants to ask me again, to demonstrate how well these schools are doing. However, I note that when he came to the Dispatch Box, he did not disabuse the House of the view that it will have taken following the shadow Secretary of State’s statement to The Sunday Times—that Labour would halt the free school programme. I hope the hon. Gentleman will do so when he has the chance again.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effects of changes to work experience on employability.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to answer this question in conjunction with Question 22. Over half of the—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman ought to be starting to get to grips with parliamentary procedures by now. There is no scope for that grouping and it certainly should not be done on the hoof, as it were. It is a matter of agreement in advance, but the hon. Gentleman will learn and he will know not to make that mistake next time.

[Matthew Hancock]

I apologise if any mis-communication happened before these questions.

Over half of employers report that not enough young people leave education with work experience or having developed employability skills.

[Julie Hilling]

“Businesses and the Government need to put their shoulders to the wheel and get our young people job-ready.” So says the CBI head John Cridland. I absolutely agree, but sadly the Secretary of State does not. Is he proud of his record of scrapping work experience and being in complete disarray on careers guidance?

[Matthew Hancock]

We encourage, and have not scrapped, work experience. We want more work experience and we are putting policies in place to make that happen. For instance, the new study programmes, which started this September, encourage work experience and an all-round education to help people to acquire the skills they need to succeed.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Barclays’ LifeSkills survey found that nine out of 10 young people believe that work experience should be mandatory, yet the number of schools offering placements for 14 to 16-year-olds in England has dropped by around 15% in the past three years. Instead of failing young people, will the Minister support Labour’s proposals to bring back compulsory work experience for 14 to 16-year-olds? Perhaps he could benefit from it himself.

[Matthew Hancock]

There never was compulsory work experience; there was compulsory work experience or “work-like activity”. As we know, young people can tell the difference very easily between real work experience and something that was cooked up in order to sound like a good headline.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

7. What progress he has made on improving the quality of vocational education.

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

10. What progress he has made on improving the quality of vocational education.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

12. What progress he has made on improving the quality of vocational education.

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

We are making the vocational education system more rigorous and more responsive to employers’ needs, removing thousands of qualifications that are not valued by employers and driving up the quality of apprenticeships.

[Mr Jones]

I welcome the introduction of tech levels and the technical baccalaureate, which will provide a gold standard in vocational qualifications, but what is my hon. Friend doing to promote such courses, and to lift the overall standing of vocational qualifications and practical careers in, for instance, engineering and construction?

[Matthew Hancock]

We have a huge programme of work for that purpose. In my hon. Friend’s own constituency, for example, the number of apprenticeships has risen by 50% since 2010. By promoting tech levels and the technical baccalaureate, we are driving up standards in vocational qualifications, and supporting progression in order to show the value of vocational and technical education and hence increase support for it.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

May I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) about parity of esteem, which has always been the issue when it comes to vocational qualifications? Does the Minister think it is about time that employers associations, industrial associations, and perhaps even local chambers became involved in selling those qualifications?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. Tech levels need to be signed off by employers in order to be recognised by the Department. In the past, there were too many so-called vocational qualifications that did not help people to get on in an occupation. We are changing that by insisting that employers publish support for a qualification before it is recognised by us, so that when people embark on a vocational course they know that they will get something valuable out of it.

[Peter Aldous]

Lowestoft college is doing excellent work in providing young people with the necessary vocational skills for the many jobs that will be created in the energy sector, but the cut in funding for 18-year-olds will have a significant impact on that work. I should welcome an update from the Minister on what mitigating measures are being introduced.

[Matthew Hancock]

I strongly support Lowestoft college, and I particularly welcome the fact that the number of apprenticeships in my hon. Friend’s constituency has almost doubled since 2010. As he knows, we are looking into the allocations to individual colleges, and also looking into measures to mitigate the effects of the change we have had to make.

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

During our last session of Education questions, I asked the Minister about a survey conducted by The Times Educational Supplement, which found that three quarters of young people had not received information about apprenticeships as part of their careers guidance. Does he still stand by the words of the Secretary of State, who said at a meeting of the Select Committee in December that he had no plans to review careers guidance?

[Matthew Hancock]

If I recall correctly, my right hon. Friend—my boss—said that we would shortly be publishing further statutory guidance, and we will.

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

My Big Career is a charity that provides face-to-face careers advice in Hackney schools, and is already making great strides in improving the present position. It has also uncovered the fact that, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), young people are not always pushed enough towards the right vocational training and qualifications. Will the Minister visit Hackney to observe the work that My Big Career is doing in schools, and see for himself the benefit of that face-to-face careers advice?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely: I should love to visit Hackney with the hon. Lady. What is happening there is part of a wider drive to ensure that it is real employers who mentor and support young people and give them inspiration. It is part of a culture change that is starting to come about, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady in that connection.

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

Vocational education ought to be a genuinely dual system. May I invite the Minister never, ever to utter the sentence “It is for those who cannot attend university”? May I also urge him to realise that it is essential to tie in work experience with vocational training?

[Matthew Hancock]

I think that our minds are as one on this. I only wish that the hon. Lady had managed to convey the same message to her party’s Front Benchers when they were last in government. We strongly believe that it should become the norm in this country for young people to be able to enter either a university or an apprenticeship, that the choice should be theirs, and that our job is to provide excellent opportunities in both.

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

Last week the Edge Foundation published the results of a survey which showed that just 27% of parents thought that vocational education was a worthwhile route for their children to take. In the light of that, does the Minister agree with me, and with my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), that more needs to be done to promote understanding of the additional rigour that has been brought to vocational qualifications in general, and to apprenticeships in particular, under the present Government?

[Matthew Hancock]

I think it is not enough simply to exhort that technical and vocational education is important. We have to make sure we show that it is valued, and that it truly is valued by employers in order to change this perceptions gap, but I would also note that on the same day that that report was published evidence was published showing that applications to apprenticeships had gone up sharply again. This shows there is movement in this area—there is a culture change in this country—and support for technical and vocational education is on the rise.

[Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to improve standards of attainment in English and mathematics.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

We know that English and maths are vital for young people’s life chances and employment prospects. Maths in particular provides the strongest link to future earnings and we are raising standards in both these subjects. It is good news that a record number of students are now taking maths A-level, and by 2020 we want the vast majority of students to be studying maths to 18.

[Mr Holloway]

What steps can the Minister take to encourage more students in Gravesham, particularly girls, to take up maths?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The key to getting more students, and girls in particular, to take maths is the quality of teaching. That is why we are offering the highest bursaries and scholarships in mathematics, and we are also making it clear to girls and their parents that maths is vital whatever career they want to go into; whether it is fashion of farming, maths is important.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that when it comes to improving standards of attainment in English and mathematics a strong independent national inspectorate is vital, and that a strong independent national inspectorate has been the anchor of the British school system since the 19th century and the days of Matthew Arnold? Does she further agree that anything that undermines the inspectorate cannot be in the best interests of British schoolchildren?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree that it is very important to have a strong national inspectorate and that is what we have under Sir Michael Wilshaw, and I am working very closely with Ofsted, in particular on maths education, to make sure that we have the highest possible quality teaching going on in our schools. That is why this Government are establishing 30 maths hubs across the country that will look at the best practice in places such as Singapore and Shanghai and make sure that is in our schools.

[Mr Speaker]

I assume the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) calculated that Question 19 on Ofsted would not be reached. That is not of itself an excuse to shoehorn the matter into a question some considerable number of minutes earlier.

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

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree with me that one of the best indicators to getting good attainment in maths and English is attendance at school? So what more can be done to ensure communities who do not always have a very good attendance record at school—sometimes the Traveller community, as in my constituency—are encouraged to make sure parents ensure their children attend school in settled fashion?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and under this Government persistent absence has reduced and we have given head teachers and teachers more power to make sure parents are ensuring their children are at school. Furthermore, we are consulting on the rules around the Gypsy-Roma Traveller community to make sure there is every encouragement for all children to get the vital education they need.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

The Government have targets for recruiting teachers of maths and physics, but School Direct in particular is falling well short. What action are the Government going to take to recover recruitment in these specialist subjects?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Lady that we have recruited a record number of physics teachers this year and we have the highest bursaries and scholarships in mathematics and physics. Moreover, we are expanding professional development in maths and physics and technology to make sure all schools have access to the best possible teachers.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

11. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of safeguarding policies in independent schools; and if he will make a statement.

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

Independent schools must follow the independent school standards and statutory guidance on safeguarding, as well as requirements on vetting checks for staff. The inspection and regulatory system is designed to ensure schools meet these standards and any failure to do so triggers a process designed to bring the school up to standard or ultimately be closed.

[Meg Munn]

Local safeguarding children boards are reporting increased problems in getting independent schools to co-operate with the requirements set out in guidance to provide information on their policies. Will the Minister look at this, and when does he plan to issue new guidance in relation to education and child protection issues?

[Mr Timpson]

First, may I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who is not standing again at the next election? Throughout her time in Parliament, she has been a real stalwart and a supporter of children in care, particularly the most vulnerable. I know that many families, not only in Sheffield but across the country, will be grateful for the work she has done. We will issue the updated guidance shortly, and I reassure her that we will look specifically at how we can ensure that the information given to local safeguarding children boards by independent schools is provided properly; that will be made as clear as possible in the guidance that is to follow.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn). [Interruption.] She has had one go; that is enough. May I say, however, that I echo entirely what the Minister has said? This House is losing far too many outstanding Members, and far too many outstanding female Members.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

There is a conflict of interest when abuse is alleged in independent and military fee-paying schools, in that the interests of children as possible victims are pitched against those of the schools, which want to protect their reputation in order to maintain fee income. Will the Minister look again at introducing mandatory reporting by staff who become aware of abuse allegations to a designated local authority officer, rather than simply requiring the reporting of abuse to a senior teacher or manager in the school?

[Mr Timpson]

The Working Together guidance, which was revised in 2013, makes abundantly clear the responsibility of all professionals who work with children to keep them safe. The evidence, internationally and from experts such as Eileen Munro, makes it clear that mandatory reporting does not necessarily make children safer and that it can have unintended consequences. We continue to look at the arguments, but at the moment the Government are not convinced that mandatory reporting is the way forward.

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

What causes the Minister greater concern: the inadequate investigations into historical abuse at those schools and the lack of support for the victims, or the worry that the system he has just outlined is so full of holes that it is still possible for a dedicated abuser to carry on victimising children in those schools?

[Mr Timpson]

We need to be careful not to conflate the two issues of historical abuse and the robustness of the current system. When there has been abuse in the past, we need to investigate it and take the evidence where it leads. I am clear, however, that the Working Together guidance—along with all the other work we are doing to improve social work practice and to free people working on the front line to spend more time with families rather than sitting behind desks—is the way forward. We are building on the Laming and Munro reviews, and that is being reflected in the response not only that Ofsted is having through its inspections but from front-line practitioners themselves, who can see the sense in what we are doing to ensure that all children are kept safe, whatever the circumstances.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

13. What steps his Department is taking to raise the status, professionalism and morale of the teaching profession.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

Our reforms are making teaching a profession of choice for top graduates. Scholarships and bursaries are attracting the very best, and teaching is now the No. 1 destination for graduates from top universities such as Oxford.

[Rosie Cooper]

Surveys by YouGov have shown that teacher morale is plummeting under this Government. Why does the Minister think that that is happening?

[Mr Laws]

I do not accept the hon. Lady’s characterisation of teaching. If it were accurate, we would not see such huge numbers of people applying to become teachers or such an increase in the average university qualifications that teachers are getting. I would also point out that we now have the most generous system ever for funding disadvantaged young people in schools, which is giving teachers the resources to do their job effectively.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Am I correct in thinking that the Government are reforming teachers’ pay so as to give schools greater flexibility to pay the best teachers more and to reward good performance? Could anyone possibly be against teachers having the performance-related pay arrangements that apply in other professions? Can there be any possible justification for teachers taking industrial action in our schools?

[Mr Laws]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that we are reforming teachers’ pay. We are ensuring that there are fair increases in their pay in these times of austerity, and that head teachers have the flexibility to reward good teachers, particularly in the most challenging schools. What the position of the other parties is on this matter I could not possibly say.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

The development of a royal college of teaching should rightly be led by teaching professionals, but will the Minister examine which functions from his Department relating to professional matters and standards could transfer to a royal college? Will he consider offering arm’s length financial support to help it get up and running?

[Mr Laws]

My hon. Friend rightly says that it would be a positive development if we were to have a royal college of teaching. Our Department is willing to play a constructive role in any discussions about the functions of such a body, which would particularly be in respect of professional development for teachers. We do not believe it would be right for our Department to seek to run such an organisation; we would want it to be independent of the Department for Education, but we are willing to do all we can to support such an initiative.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

14. What steps he is taking to improve support for young carers.

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

On 8 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education issued a written ministerial statement announcing an amendment to the Children and Families Bill. For the first time, all young carers will have the right to an assessment of their needs for support, as part of the consideration of the needs of the whole family. This amendment will help achieve our aim of protecting young people from excessive or inappropriate caring roles.

[Chloe Smith]

I very much welcome those measures in the Children and Families Bill. I will meet Norfolk Young Carers Forum next week to, “Get it right in education”, as the forum puts it. These young carers tell me that there needs to be more awareness of young carers at schools and colleges, and in the workplace. What message would the Minister send the NYCF?

[Mr Timpson]

I commend my hon. Friend for taking up the challenge on behalf of young carers in her constituency. I know they have been particularly active in helping to design and commission many of the services across the country for young carers. To help raise awareness and to encourage good practice in schools, we are working with the Children’s Society and the Carers Trust to provide teachers with the tools—the training and guidance—they need to recognise and support young carers as early as possible.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

15. How many applications for academy status from community primary schools have been declined by his Department. [Official Report, 28 February 2014, Vol. 576, c. 1MC.]

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Eighty.

[Mr Slaughter]

I thank the Secretary of State for that succinct answer. The reason I ask is that tonight Hammersmith and Fulham’s Conservative council is set to vote for the closure of Sulivan primary school in Fulham, which is rated in the top 2% in the country, in order to give its site to a free school. Sulivan’s last hope is the Secretary of State, so will he agree with the London Diocesan Board for Schools, which wants to take Sulivan into its family of schools as an academy, that it is

“unusual to close successful schools with growing rolls”,

and save Sulivan school?

[Michael Gove]

I admire good local authorities, and Hammersmith and Fulham’s is one of the best, so the decisions it quite properly takes outside the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) I would entirely support. As for creating a free school in Hammersmith and Fulham, why should a former public schoolboy such as the hon. Gentleman, who benefited from the independence of a great school such as Latymer upper, wish to deny such high standards to others? Is it that the hypocrisy—forgive me, the double standards—of the Labour Front-Bench team now extends to the Back Benchers, too?

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

17. What steps he is taking to ensure that academies and free schools are accountable for their leadership and corporate governance.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

Academies and free schools are subject to the same rigorous Ofsted inspection framework as maintained schools. Ofsted inspectors examine the impact of leaders at all levels and evaluate how effectively the school is governed and managed. The Education Funding Agency and our Department are also responsible for the oversight of academies and the free schools programme.

[Duncan Hames]

I thank the Minister for that response. Where both teaching staff and Ofsted, through these inspections, raise concerns about the management or governance of an academy or free school, what means are available to them to secure any necessary changes to both procedures and personnel?

[Mr Laws]

The first thing staff and others should do in those circumstances is to raise their concerns with the governing body. If they are not satisfied with that, they should not hesitate to raise concerns with either the EFA or our Department. We always take such matters extremely seriously. If my hon. Friend has any concerns about any cases in his constituency, he should feel free to raise them with me or other Ministers.

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

22. Will the Minister assure the House that when a school that is currently under local authority control has more than one option for moving to academy status, that school and the community will have a genuine choice about which option to take?

[Mr Laws]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will seriously consider the local authority’s view, but we will ensure that the best possible sponsor is in place, and that is not always the sponsor identified by the local authority, especially if the authority itself has failed over a long period to raise standards in that school.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Does the Minister think that spending £1 million on a free school for 30 children in my constituency is good value for money when we have surplus places and really good local schools that are crying out for investment?

[Mr Laws]

Free schools are being targeted at areas of basic need and where standards are low. We are trying to ensure that the free schools programme complements the Government’s work to provide school places and raise standards throughout the country.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

18. What assessment he has made of the potential role of schools in building character and resilience in young people.

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

Schools play an important role in providing character-building activities for their pupils. Sports clubs, orchestras and choirs, school plays, cadet forces and debating competitions all help to build character and give children opportunities to flourish. Schools are best placed to determine the needs of their pupils and how best to meet them.

[Damian Hinds]

Given that welcome emphasis on character building for all, may I commend to the Minister—and subtly plug—a report out tomorrow on character and resilience by the all-party group on social mobility? Will he consider more ways to develop these crucial traits throughout childhood, and in and out of school?

[Mr Speaker]

Not that subtly.

[Mr Timpson]

The report has clearly moved to the top of my reading list. I will read it carefully and look at some of the lessons that we can learn from my hon. Friend’s work, to which I pay tribute. We have already spoken about the role that cadet forces can play in state schools, and we are working with the Ministry of Defence to improve that role. We are also removing unnecessary health and safety rules that prevent children from going on expeditions and seeking adventures, which I hope that the whole House will applaud.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Of course one of the ways of building resilience among pupils would be to introduce compulsory sex and relationships education. Fahma Mohamed, a 17-year-old student from Bristol, is spearheading a national campaign to end female genital mutilation. I understand that she has written to the Secretary of State to ask if he is prepared to meet her. Her petition has already attracted 167,000 signatures. Will the Minister ask his colleague whether he is prepared to meet Fahma, who is doing brilliant work through the campaign?

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and the answer is yes.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

19. What recent discussions he has had with the head of Ofsted on leadership in schools.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Leadership and management are integral to the success of a school and, as such, feature regularly in my discussions with Her Majesty’s chief inspector.

[Derek Twigg]

What was it that brought the Secretary of State to the view that it was time to “refresh” the person in charge of Ofsted, Baroness Morgan, and to bring in a fresh perspective? What specifically concerned him about performance on school improvement to lead him to that conclusion?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to do in this House what I have done on other platforms and underline my debt to Baroness Morgan, who has led the Ofsted board in a superlative fashion. However, it is good corporate practice to ensure that the chair of any body—whether the Surrey Heath Conservative association or Ofsted—is refreshed from time to time.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

I had the opportunity last week to congratulate the nation’s teachers on the fantastic GCSE performance recorded in our league tables, which show that the number of students being educated in schools below floor standards at secondary level has diminished dramatically under this Government. I would like to take the opportunity once more to thank the nation’s teachers for the superb work that they do.

[Annette Brooke]

I echo the Secretary of State’s comment.

Following a unilateral decision by an academy upper school in my constituency to change the age of transfer from 13 to 11, assuming that the local authorities carry out a feasibility study and full consultation, and demonstrate that pupil outcomes will be improved, what assistance can the Government give towards capital expenditure for any reorganisation of the feeder schools, as that clearly is not in any plans?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend raises a very specific case, although I understand why she has brought it to my attention. I hope that we will have the opportunity to talk afterwards so that I can ensure that the Dorset local authority is provided with all the support it needs to make sure that children’s educational standards improve.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Halton (Derek Twigg) have shown, the Opposition recognise the essential role that Ofsted plays in driving up standards in schools. I want to place on the record our continued support for Sir Michael Wilshaw. However, since we last met, the Secretary of State has, in the words of Sir Michael, unleashed a “smear campaign” against the chief inspector. He has also sacked Baroness Morgan as chair of Ofsted, despite the fact that the Minister for Schools thinks that she has done a “fantastic job”. Why is the Secretary of State so intent on undermining England’s independent school inspectorate system?

[Michael Gove]

I am sure that the chief inspector will be touched to hear the hon. Gentleman’s words of support, but I think that he will also be disturbed to hear that he is alleged to have uttered words that he did not utter. This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has sallied forth without being in secure possession of the facts. It has been the case beforehand that his facts have been wrong about the situation in the South Leeds academy, and it has been the case that his facts have been wrong, on broadcast, about the number of unqualified teachers in our schools. His facts are wrong again in the allegations he makes about the chief inspector. I hope that he will take this opportunity to ensure that the House knows that he has unfairly and wrongly put words in the chief inspector’s mouth that he did not utter.

[Tristram Hunt]

We see that the Secretary of State has refused to condemn the campaign against the chief inspector. Is not the truth of the matter this: Ofsted is inspecting his free schools without fear or favour, and he does not like it? The chief inspector wants to inspect academy chains, and he does not like it. On Friday the Al-Madinah secondary school closed, and on Sunday we learned of a new Ofsted purge. Surely the Secretary of State should focus on raising standards, not politicising our school inspectorate system.

[Michael Gove]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to be taken seriously, he must pay close attention to the facts. The facts are these: I have been zealous in ensuring that we apply a tighter and more rigorous inspection framework to all schools—free schools, academies and maintained schools—and in so doing I appointed Sir Michael Wilshaw and I appointed Sally Morgan. I have been the person who has been leading change in our schools. I have been the person who has been insistent that we hold our education system to the highest standards. I am the person now demanding once again that the hon. Gentleman withdraw his earlier statement when he put words into the mouth of Sir Michael Wilshaw that he did not utter. If he does not, we will draw the appropriate conclusion, as the New Statesman already has, which is that his policies are both “timid” and “incoherent”.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T3. I recently visited Havering college in my constituency and Barking and Dagenham college just outside it. The Secretary of State will be pleased to know that we have excellent standards there, but one thing that is lacking is the importance of teaching our young people about the British constitution, our history, political affairs and so on. What do the Government intend to do to ensure greater awareness of those subjects among young people?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

From September, the new history curriculum will ensure that children understand the history of these islands as well as a coherent chronological narrative. In citizenship, they will learn about the United Kingdom’s constitution, about the precious liberties enjoyed by citizens of our country and about their role as citizens and how they can participate.

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

T2. Given the well documented problems that whistle- blowers encountered in reporting their experiences at Barnfield Federation to the Department for Education, will the Secretary of State commit to publishing all inquiry reports in full, including all the versions that have circulated outside the Departments involved?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. As we both know, very serious allegations have been made in connection with the Barnfield Federation. They are currently being investigated, and nothing I say, do or publish should prejudice those investigations. However, as has always been the case, whenever there is information that it is right we should share with those affected and with the public, we will share it in due course.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

T4. What action is the Minister taking to support parents and children in deprived areas, particular those in temporary accommodation and without access to IT facilities, to access and retain permanent school places, and is he willing to look at the system in place at Barnfield primary school in my constituency, with a view to seeing how the Government might encourage effective support in other schools?

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

I would be delighted to look at the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency to see what we can learn from it. During this Parliament we have more than doubled the capital budget for basic need compared with the budget under the previous Labour Government, and that is helping us to deal with such pressures across the country.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your earlier kind comments, and the Children’s Minister for the same. Given such warmth towards me today, perhaps the Secretary of State will tell me why, given that in 2007 the Prime Minister spoke of a new generation of Co-operative schools and said that they had been welcomed across the board, not one of the Ministers will agree to meet me to discuss these issues and the Bill that I put forward which would put Co-operative schools on a firmer footing.

[Michael Gove]

Any opportunity to spend time with the hon. Lady is one that I would rush to take. The cause of the Co-operative movement is very close to my heart, so I would be delighted to talk to her, perhaps over a cup of tea, before too long.

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

T6. Will the Secretary of State make it 100% clear that he is totally supportive of teachers who want to use their judgment and common sense to apply discipline and punishments that are sensible and proportionate?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. A third of teachers do not feel they know exactly which sanctions they are able to use. That is why the Secretary of State outlined sanctions such as writing lines, running around the school playing field and picking up litter, so that proper discipline can be imposed. It is vital that students are able to learn and that there is an end to low-level disruption in the classroom.

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

The Facebook drinking game Neknomination has gone viral, and very sadly young people have died as a result. What role do schools have in building resilience in our young people to resist peer pressure?

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

The hon. Lady is right to be concerned about some of the ever-changing risks, as well as opportunities, for young people through the internet. That is why we have brought in the teaching of online safety at every key stage so that from the earliest opportunity children are getting the benefit of sound advice. It is also important that parents play their role so that children are getting a consistent message both at school and at home.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

T7. The 17.5% cuts in spending for 18-plus learning announced last year by the Education Funding Agency, the changes in the 16-to-19 funding formula and the unfair treatment of sixth-form colleges compared with schools regarding VAT have put sixth-form colleges under serious strain, with cuts to courses and staff. Will the Minister, or even the Secretary of State, meet me and the principal of the excellent Barton Peveril college in Eastleigh to discuss the impact of these cuts?

[The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and the principal of his local sixth-form college to discuss how to make sure that in these tight spending times, which we all know exist, sixth-form colleges can maximise the flexibilities at their command in order to continue the excellent education that most deliver.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Many children who are entitled to free school meals do not receive that benefit, often because parental embarrassment or a lack of English mean that the application is not made. Will the Minister ensure that those children are passported through on the basis of benefit assessments already made in respect of those families?

[Mr Laws]

This is a very important issue, because take-up of free school meals is quite low in some parts of the country. We are working with local authorities to improve the identification of the children who are so entitled, with some considerable success. As we introduce universal infant free meals, we will also look at ways in which we can make this more automatic for all the pupils who are entitled to extra funding for free school meals and the pupil premium.

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

T8. I have recently had to deal with a number of bullying cases in my local schools. The root cause of that bullying appears to be very poor discipline. Too often, this indiscipline is caused not by bad teaching but by bad parenting. Will my right hon. Friend do something to improve the situation?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that parents and teachers need to work together in order to ensure very high standards of behaviour. It is often the case that what happens before children ever attend school—in the earliest years—matters. That is why the programme of work that the Government are undertaking, led by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Communities and Local Government to help troubled families is so important.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm his support for the ban on smoking in cars with children present?

[Michael Gove]

Absolutely.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

University technical colleges are an increasingly important and positive part of our education system. Do Ministers share my dismay that, despite the Baker Dearing Trust making it very clear that one would be welcome in Leeds, Leeds city council refused to put one together for the important West Park centre site, which is now a pile of rubble?

[Michael Gove]

I am genuinely sorry to hear that and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman in order to make sure that opportunities for children in Leeds are not thwarted by the Labour council.

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Contrary to the information given earlier, the Secretary of State is well aware that the attainment gap between the wealthiest and the poorest children in this country grew in every region apart from London last year. Does he accept any responsibility for that?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely do, but I think the hon. Lady is in error. As has been pointed out by Dr Becky Francis, among others, the attainment gap actually narrowed in primary schools, where our reforms have had more of an opportunity to have an effect on a percentage of children’s lives. At secondary level, of course the problem remains. That is why it is so disappointing that the Labour party is opposed to initiatives such as the free schools programme, which Andrew Adonis has greeted so warmly, but which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) would halt.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I and parents, teachers and local councils in my constituency are supporting a bid for a studio school at the site of the Grange school in Warmley. Will departmental representatives agree to meet me and a delegation to discuss the bid, which will be absolutely vital for raising standards in my constituency?

[Michael Gove]

I would be delighted to do everything I can to support that bid, not least given the fact that new school provision, studio schools and free schools are threatened by the Labour party’s ideological opposition to new provision.

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

At a time when there is overwhelming evidence about the value of physical activity to improving health outcomes and learning in classrooms, why on earth is the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), defending the right of teachers to use running around the playground as a punishment, rather than using the bully pulpit of the Dispatch Box to condemn such outmoded practices?

[Michael Gove]

As a great admirer of Teddy Roosevelt, I am happy to use whatever bully pulpits are available. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), on securing a sports premium in our primary schools, which ensures that more physical activity is available than ever before. I also thank the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for the work he has undertaken with me to bring an independent school into the state sector—using the free school programme—in order to give more children opportunities I am afraid his Front-Bench colleagues would, for ideological reasons, deny them. He is a good Blairite; they are the bad ones.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

School holidays are an important time when families can spend time together, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is a difference between legitimate travel companies making a profit and profiteering?

[Michael Gove]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very acute point. One of the flexibilities we have given—not least to academies and free schools—is the ability to vary school holidays in order to make sure that holidays can be cheaper and parents can take them off-peak. That is another school freedom that, for ideological reasons, I am afraid Labour Front Benchers would deny. I do not understand why they are so keen to make holidays more expensive for hard-working families.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I am rather perplexed. Are Government Front Benchers able to help me? A written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) said that there was no idea how much it cost to create 138 new sixth forms in schools. Given that we want value for money, I found that very difficult to understand.

[Matthew Hancock]

The point I was making is that the amount of resource spending for each pupil aged 16 to 19 is the same, with an additional amount for those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those studying more high-cost programmes like engineering, our support for which is vital for our national economy.

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

The Secretary of State will be aware of the sentence handed out in Amersham Crown court last week to the former head teacher of the Caldicott preparatory school after years of abuse of children in his care. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to my constituent Mr Tom Perry, who was brave enough to speak out about his own abuse? Will he agree to meet Mr Perry and me to discuss the possibility of mandatory reporting, as Mr Perry believes it would better protect our children in the future?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and Mr Perry for their leadership on this issue. I would like to invite him to the Department to discuss exactly what we can do in the future to ensure that this sort of horrific abuse does not happen again.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must move on.

Contact Between Prescribed Persons and Adopted Person’s Relatives

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

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 2 to 42.

Lords amendment 43, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 44 to 72.

Lords amendment 73, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 74 to 120, 126 to 149 and 151 to 157.

Lords amendment 158, and amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendments 159 to 176.

[Mr Timpson]

It is a pleasure to set out to the House a number of Lords amendments. The changes will improve our reforms, and make a real and lasting difference for children and families. I hope Members will support them. I will try to be as succinct as possible in explaining each set of amendments.

19:49

As the House will recall, part 1 of the Bill covers adoption, and we have made Lords amendments 1 to 11 to this part. Through Lords amendment 1, we have added a clause that will enable us, by regulation, to ensure that those with a prescribed relationship to people adopted before 30 December 2005 can apply to access intermediary services to facilitate contact with the adopted person’s birth relatives.

[Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)]

Will the Minister please say whether there will be a presumption in favour of disclosure to children and grandchildren? Specifically, if an adopted person does not wish to have contact with the birth parents, does the amendment state that prescribed persons can go against those wishes?

[Mr Timpson]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued interest in this important matter. The whole basis of the amendment is to extend the provisions that already exist, so that anyone who wants to make further inquiries, about accessing information or making contact, has to do so through the intermediary services. There is not a presumption, therefore, in that sense. We are looking to go beyond the direct line of descendants from the adopted person, who obviously fall within the prescribed relationship category, and consult on whether we should widen that to others. The provision certainly does not work on the basis that if someone does not want to have contact there is a presumption that that will take place.

[Mr Djanogly]

Is my hon. Friend saying that the intermediary might have more discretion than the adopted person, who may have a different view from the children?

[Mr Timpson]

The intermediary service is there to ensure that anyone who seeks access does so in a way that does not compromise the position of the person they are seeking either to gain access to or make contact with. That is in line with the approach that already exists, and which works well and successfully. What I can say on the record to reassure my hon. Friend is that this will not force anybody to have contact if they do not wish to do so. Clearly, there will be lots of reasons why people will either want to make contact or have access to records. For example, someone may want to understand the genetic history of direct descendants to see whether there is a prevalent hereditary disease to which they are more prone.

At this juncture, may I say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for his tireless campaigning on this issue, as well as to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Government Policy, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), who has continued his personal interest in pursuing these important changes? I believe that the changes will ensure, where it is appropriate to do so and through the intermediary services, a greater prospect for those who want to establish contact or have access to information, to be able to do so without compromising those who may be also involved.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his generous words. I put on record that many of my constituents, and many people from outside my constituency, have contacted me on this matter. I have been able to say to them that this has been Parliament at its best, working with Ministers on this subject. I am grateful to him for the advice and support of his office in moving towards an acceptable solution.

[Mr Timpson]

I thank my hon. Friend for those words. As he knows, this has been a long-standing issue on which we have sought the advice of the Law Commission and others to establish a way forward. The fact that we can now legislate and implement these provisions represents a good outcome for many people, including his constituents.

In amendment 2, we have clarified the point at which the fostering for adoption scheme must be considered for a child and established that before a local authority considers placing a child in this way, it must first have considered kinship care and decided that it was not the most appropriate placement. Also in part 1, through amendments 7 to 10, we have introduced an affirmative resolution procedure in relation to the Secretary of State’s powers to direct local authorities to outsource adoption functions, in relation to the use of personal budgets and in relation to allowing approved prospective adopters to search and inspect the Adoption and Children Act 2002 register in pilot areas.

On part 2 and family justice, many hon. Members will be pleased that the noble Lords accepted the principle and purpose of clause 11. However, we have accepted amendment 12 to clause 11 from the noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss. As hon. Members will also be aware, clause 11 introduces a presumption that a child’s welfare will be furthered by the involvement of each parent, where this is safe and subject to the overarching principle that the child’s welfare must be paramount. Baroness Butler-Sloss’s amendment addresses concerns raised that the clause could be misinterpreted as giving a parent a right to a certain amount of time with a child. That was never the intention, as I have said several times during the Bill’s passage. The amendment addresses those concerns by clarifying that “involvement” does not mean a particular amount of time.

Importantly, the amendment does not change the effect of clause 11, as it will remain for courts to determine what arrangements are right for each child in the light of the evidence before it. I want to put on the record my gratitude to my hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley) and, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has championed this change in the law for many years. I have no doubt that had he not done so, we would not have made the significant progress we now have.

[Tim Loughton]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I understand the logic of Baroness Butler-Sloss’s amendment in not referring to a particular division of a child’s time. Despite being at loggerheads with her over many years, I can see the logic of that. Will he explain, though, why her amendment refers to “direct or indirect” contact? What does that add to the Bill?

[Mr Timpson]

As I said in Committee, I did not feel it was necessary to add anything more to the clause in order to explain its function, but that was not the view of their lordships. The reference to “direct or indirect” contact makes it clear what we mean by “contact”. As I know from my time practising in the family courts, many orders are set out in those same terms. It does not mean, however, that indirect contact, in itself, fulfils the presumption that we have now set in law; it simply makes it clear what we mean by “contact”.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for establishing the important principle that children’s rights include knowing, and having contact with, both their parents, but for the benefit of the House and those outside, will he confirm that “indirect” contact will not be interpreted as meaning just a phone call at Christmas or a book of photographs, and that it will be meaningful contact, even if indirect?

[Mr Timpson]

Once again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his persistence in pushing this issue. I cannot prescribe exactly the outcome of every case before the courts or the view of a judge concerning the correct order to make. However, the clause seeks to make it abundantly clear that, where it is safe to do so and in the child’s best interests, the child should have meaningful contact with both parents. How that contact takes place is then for the judge to determine according to the usual criteria. I was trying to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that indirect contact, on its own, could not, in every case, fulfil the presumption. It is important to put that on the record, and I wrote to him today about that to put—I hope—his mind at rest.

[Bill Esterson]

On contact, will the Minister clarify the position regarding children’s views and the paramountcy principle? From what he just said, I am slightly concerned about the view of the judge. I know he thinks it important that the needs of the child come first, but how do we ensure that contact is appropriate and avoid inappropriate contact that does more harm than good?

[Mr Timpson]

We will do that by ensuring that the paramountcy principle still holds water and that the judge’s discretion is not fettered by this change in the law. We went to great lengths to set out, with the help of parliamentary counsel, exactly how that would operate. Baroness Butler-Sloss, with her esteemed legal mind, was happy to accept it in the terms we set out. So I do not see any conflict. We have been clear from the start that this is about the right of the child to have a meaningful relationship with both parents, where it is safe for them to do so and in their best interests, and their lordships have agreed to that presumption and principle. The only change that has come, as a consequence of their amendment, is that we are stating in the Bill something that we had already made clear was our intention in both the pre-legislative scrutiny stage and in subsequent stages in the House.

I would like to recognise the considerable contributions by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly)to our important reforms of the family justice system. Their expertise and insight have been invaluable. I was a fellow Cestrian member of the Bar and, like him, plied my trade along the north Wales coast, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman’s legal clout will be sorely missed in the next Parliament and beyond.

Part 3 takes forward our fundamental reforms to special educational needs and introduces integrated education, health and care plans for children and young people with the most complex special educational needs, extends comparable rights and protections to 16 to 25-year-olds in further education and training, as found in schools, and introduces a new local offer to ensure that parents, children, young people and those who work with them can see the support that should be available to them.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I welcome the enhanced offer in the Bill as a result of our deliberations in Committee. Earlier today, I had a meeting with senior consultants in social services and charities concerned about the situation of seriously ill children, their families and the social work support they need. How will the incorporation into the Bill of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 help those children, who might be terminally ill, but will certainly be seriously ill, and their families get the social work and educational support they need at a very difficult time?

[Mr Timpson]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will be dealing in more detail later with the social care element, the 1970 Act and how that sits within the Bill. However, during the course of the Bill, I have met hon. Members concerned about children who might be terminally ill, perhaps with cancer, seeking support from elsewhere, outside their educational environment. We have taken that into account in the Bill and in the code of practice, which is still being drafted but will soon be available, so that those who require support through their education receive it when they need it and in a way that makes a difference.

[Joan Walley]

Will CLIC Sargent and other charities dealing with the chronically sick have an input into the guidance as well as the Bill?

[Mr Timpson]

I had the opportunity to meet CLIC Sargent and a Labour Member who has a particular interest in this matter to discuss many of their concerns. That has already resulted in some changes to the draft code of practice, and CLIC Sargent remains involved—as do many other organisations, charities, parent-carer groups, parent partnerships and others—in shaping the SEN code of practice so that it reflects what we know works on the ground. That will continue as we move into the implementation stage, should the Bill become an Act in due course. Given these reforms, for which many families, professionals and charities have been waiting for 30 years, it is fair to say that many of our conversations with CLIC Sargent and other groups—particularly the discussions about the all-important detail, which is ultimately what will matter—have been helpful.

20:00

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

I, too, am particularly pleased that the local offer has been somewhat strengthened, as it will be central to the success or otherwise of the new system of support for children and young people with special educational needs. However, I still do not think it is good enough for the unwritten postcode lottery that we have now just to become a written one. Does the Minister not agree that we need a baseline against which parents can judge whether their local offer is good or even sufficient?

[Mr Timpson]

I thank the hon. Lady—for probably the 14th time during the passage of this Bill—for her continued constructive approach to this part of the Bill. I know she has a keen interest from her own family background in ensuring that we produce a system that has children and their families at its heart. We had an interesting and quite long debate in the Commons and another place about the local offer and minimum standards, as well as—from memory—a number of Westminster Hall debates.

It is clear from both the regulation on the local offer that we have set out and the code of practice that having a national framework not only provides some of the stability in provision that the hon. Lady is looking for, but allows the local offer to be truly local, so that people have a genuine reflection of what their local authority expects to be available and deliverable for children and families in that area. Therefore, although I hear her continued call—which I think is for national minimum standards—I think we have got the balance right between having a national framework and giving parents and young people the opportunity to be consulted on the local offer and comment on it as it is developed, and also, given the addition to the Bill and the code since the Commons stages, ensuring that local authorities respond to the queries and concerns raised by families.

[Mrs Hodgson]

If it is brought to the Minister’s attention that unacceptable differences are developing across the country, will he have a mechanism to revisit this?

[Mr Timpson]

As the hon. Lady knows, we have to use the affirmative resolution procedure in this House for the code of practice and that will provide an opportunity to look at some of these issues. The other thing we have done to ensure that implementation is as successful as it can be across the country is to carry out a local authority readiness survey. We are working with local authorities that are perhaps not as well advanced as others in starting to prepare for the changes, which includes looking at the local offer and what steps they have taken so far to involve families in its evolution. That will continue as these reforms become a reality from September.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Timpson]

I will, but I have quite a lot to get through.

[Bill Esterson]

I appreciate the Minister’s giving way. Things will vary around the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said. Will he look at sharing good practice, and does he think it wise for the Government to be saying, “This is what we consider to be best practice,” in order to give local authorities that do not have best practice an indication of what they should be doing?

[Mr Timpson]

We have already provided local authorities with a raft of good practice and data to help them not only to improve their understanding of what is required of them, but to do better at the earlier end of the process —in commissioning, planning and assessment. We can learn a huge amount from many of the voluntary organisations that are out there in the field, working closely with families and statutory agencies to ensure that they get the best possible outcomes. We have a number of grants and contracts with those voluntary organisations to support them in doing that. That will be a key part of ensuring that our reforms start to bite in the way that we have already started to see in many of the pathfinder areas.

We have also extended the scope of a number of significant clauses to children and young people who are disabled, but do not have special educational needs, through Lords amendments 14 to 39, 41 to 46, 48 to 51, 62 to 65, 67 and 118. I am pleased that we were able to make that change, which has been widely welcomed. For example, Julie Jennings, a board member of Every Disabled Child Matters, has said:

“The changes announced today mean that all disabled children and young people, will benefit from the Children and Families Bill when it is introduced. This is very welcome news, indeed.”

To reflect that, Lords amendment 176 would amend the long title of the Bill to include children and young people with disabilities. We have also made it clear, in clause 21, that health care and social care provision that educates or trains a child or young person is to be treated as special educational provision. That relates to an understandable concern of many Members of this House, so I hope the change in Lords amendment 13 is welcome.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. We had many arguments about the “wholly or mainly” provision in the original draft of the Bill, and I am grateful to him and the noble Lord Nash for listening to the case that many of us made against it. We now have clarity, which we hope will prevent the sort of damaging litigation that has plagued special educational needs provision over the years.

[Mr Timpson]

My hon. Friend speaks with great wisdom and force, as he has done throughout the passage of the Bill, particularly on this part. To hear him utter those words gives me great confidence that we have done the right thing and ended up with both clarity and a sense of what is now required as we move forward.

The local offer was discussed at some length in this House. We have amended part 3 further to improve accountability and the responsiveness of the local offer. I do not think it would be right to make the changes sought by amendment (a) to Lords amendment 43 in the way proposed. These issues have been debated at length in both Houses, both of which accepted the Government’s arguments, which I will briefly explain again.

The local offer will contain provision made by a wide range of organisations, including small voluntary sector groups or informal arrangements—for example, a circle of friends group for disabled young people set up by local young people. The services may be expected to be available, but this cannot be guaranteed. Requiring local authorities to publish what is available might deter them from including such provision in the first place, and children and young people will miss out. In publishing what it expects to be available, the local authority cannot say, “Well, we think this might be available one day, so we’ll put it in.” For the avoidance of any doubt, we will make it clear in the SEN code of practice that the duty on the local authority to set out what it expects to be available is not about what it would like to be available, but about what it actually expects to be available.

We have also made a set of amendments that will shift the focus from explicit consideration of age when assessing education, health and care plans for 19 to 25-year-olds, and that instead require local authorities to consider whether a young person requires more time to complete their education or training, and whether the specified outcomes have been achieved before the plan can cease.

Lords amendments 72 and 73 build on the health duty introduced in Committee in the Commons by including in the Bill provision made under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, under which there is an existing duty to provide social care services to disabled children. Those amendments were welcomed by the Special Educational Consortium and a number of peers on Third Reading in the other place. Lord Rix said:

“The government amendments move us closer to the holy grail of integrated education, health and social care,”

and will

“undoubtedly aid children and young people with a learning disability and their families.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 209.]

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Timpson]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth.

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

Well remembered, Minister!

I think that there is much that we can support in the Bill, but I wanted to ask about the single point of appeal and the reviews and pilots that are taking place. Will the Minister explain how the findings will be used in the further development of the appeal process?

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for returning us to the important issue of redress. I shall go into a little more detail in due course, but I can say now that I was conscious from the outset that we should do all that we can to integrate education, health and social care throughout the system, including in the areas where there was disagreement. I think that we have gone a long way towards achieving that during the passage of the Bill so far, but if the hon. Lady will bear with me for a few moments, I shall wax lyrical for her and the House’s benefit.

I understand the intention behind amendment (a) to Lords amendment 73. It is, of course, vital for parents and practitioners to understand the duties to deliver the social care services specified in the education, health and care plan. However, let me reiterate the points made by Baroness Northover when she spoke to Lords amendments 72 and 73.

The Government amendments mean that when a local authority decides that it is necessary to make provision for a disabled child under section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 following an EHC assessment, the authority must—I emphasise “must”—identify which provision is made under section 2 of the Act, specify that provision clearly in the EHC plan, and deliver the provision. Furthermore—I hope that this is helpful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe)—we will ensure that the SEN code of practice specifies the services under section 2 that must be included in the EHC plan and explains the existing duty to provide those services, in order to provide clarity and reassurance for parents and practitioners.

The code of practice will clearly specify the other social care services that must be included in the EHC plan and relevant local authority duties, including services provided for children and young people under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 that are not covered by the 1970 Act, such as residential short breaks, and adult social care services for young people aged 18 to 25, where a care plan is drawn up under provisions in the Care Bill. Given those reassurances, I do not think it is necessary to legislate for a further requirement to identify existing duties in the EHC plan.

Lords amendments 86 to 97 and 113 constitute a strong package to improve the join-up between education, health and social care when parents and young people wish to complain or seek redress. That includes extending mediation and establishing a review of appeals and redress in the new SEN system. Following a commitment that I gave on Report, we tabled a meaty group of amendments that will strengthen protections and support for young offenders with SEN. They require local authorities and relevant health commissioners to arrange appropriate special education and health provision for young offenders in custody, enable EHC assessments to take place while a child or young person is in custody, and require secure youth institutions to co-operate with local authorities and to have regard to the SEN code of practice.

The package also includes amendment 114, which would remove clause 70. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for his involvement in and guidance on the issue, and on many of the changes I have just outlined. As he knows, I was as uncomfortable as he was about clause 70. Although it was a legal necessity at the beginning of our deliberations, it did not really reflect the ambition that we shared, and I hope that he is as pleased as I am to see the back of it.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that he worked with the Ministry of Justice and, in particular, with the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), who was as committed as we were to ensuring that this was an ambitious Bill that covered all the right areas. I pay tribute to both Ministers for ensuring that children and young people who need rehabilitation as much as punishment can be assisted, and we can reduce reoffending. That is very important too.

[Mr Timpson]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. Perhaps I should also put on record the important contribution of Lord Ramsbotham, who, having worked at the top of the Prison Service, has continued his work in Parliament and enabled us to make the inroads that we have made in the Bill.

20:15

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart)— whose continued scrutiny of and interest in the Bill have been extremely welcome—and all the other members of the Education Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) for all the challenge and support that they have given to this part of the Bill. Let me also put on record my deep gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) for doing so much of the groundwork, without which the Bill might never have become a reality.

Part 4 contains a number of important measures that will help to make more high-quality, affordable child care available to parents. It addresses the long-term decline in childminder numbers by establishing childminder agencies, removes the requirement for local authorities to produce a bureaucratic three-yearly assessment of child care in their areas, and introduces paving legislation for tax-free child care.

On Report in another place, we were pleased to introduce Lords amendments 157 to 160, which contain a clear requirement for Ofsted to report on the arrangements whereby childminder agencies assure the quality of the early education and care offered by their childminders. I note that amendment (a) to Lords amendment 158 relates to that subject, and I can confirm that our intention is for Ofsted to conduct sample inspections to secure that assurance. Ofsted recently published its consultation paper on childminder agency inspections, which includes details of its proposal to carry out sample inspections of early years providers, so we do not agree that such a provision is needed in the Bill. I am happy to discuss the matter with both the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) as we try to proceed with these important changes.

We also introduced technical amendments, Lords amendments 161 to 175 to schedule 4, to clarify the arrangements for childminders to appeal against suspensions by their childminder agencies and to clarify the disqualification regime for staff running or working in a childminder agency. Lords amendment 119 allows regulations to be made setting out the arrangements whereby local authorities fund early years providers delivering the free child care offer, and limiting any unnecessary conditions that local authorities could place on providers. I am pleased that we were able to introduce new policy to the Bill, which, if accepted, would create a new part 5 entitled “Welfare of Children”.

Lords amendment 120 removes the restriction on the types of performance in which a child under 14 can be licensed to take part, which will enable children to take part in a wider range of performances. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham for his admirable persistence in keeping that issue to the fore. I know from the correspondence that I have subsequently received from a range of organisations and individuals who are vexed by the issue how warmly those changes have been received. Let me put on record my thanks to Sarah Thane, whose work ensured that the issues were properly examined and have resulted in important legislative and non-legislative changes. I am continuing to work with the Local Government Association to enable local authorities to gain as much information as possible on how they can streamline their own procedures so that many more children, as well as being safe and having their welfare taken into consideration, have the opportunity to participate in what can be extremely valuable additions to their early lives.

Lords amendment 126 adds an important new clause to improve the assessment of the needs of young carers. I thank the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and the National Young Carers Coalition for their constructive and patient approach and interest in this subject. Matthew Reed, the chief executive of the Children’s Society, welcomed the amendment, saying:

“We applaud the Government for taking a huge leap to support often incredibly vulnerable young carers who are slipping through the net, undetected by the support services they desperately need.”

Lords amendment 127 adds a new clause which consolidates and streamlines existing legislation for individuals with parental responsibility for a disabled child, under which they have the right to an assessment of their needs by a local authority.

[Paul Burstow]

On amendment 126 in respect of young carers as well as parent carers, may I thank the Minister very much for the way in which he has engaged with carers organisations, me and many other hon. Members? These issues first surfaced in the Joint Committee’s scrutiny of the Care Bill, and I thank the Minister for care and support, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), for the way he has engaged with these issues, too. Will the Minister here tonight now give some consideration to the following? Now that we have these two parts of the Bill and we complete the range of improvements for carers, can we make sure we have joint guidance from both Departments covering all carers?

[Mr Timpson]

May I first pay particular thanks to my right hon. Friend and also to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) for their dedicated work and interest on behalf of parent carers? That was clearly on display at the meeting I had with them both not too long ago. My right hon. Friend will see that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for care is sitting alongside me, and we both heard that constructive and sensible suggestion, and we will both take it up and discuss it in more detail and see whether we can make some important cross-Government changes so that those who are looking at the guidance that is relevant to them find it easier to access and understand it, rather than trying to find information in a host of different places.

[Paul Burstow]

It is helpful to get these points clarified. I think my suggestion would be helpful, in particular because this welcome new provision for parent carers makes specific reference to the well-being principle in the Care Bill; and making sure that guidance is co-ordinated will ensure that there is no difference in application, regardless of whether someone is in a children’s service or an adult service.

[Mr Timpson]

My right hon. Friend makes a sensible and logical suggestion; we will go away and consider it and come back to him in due course.

Amendment 128 added a new clause enabling any young person who was in care immediately before their 18th birthday as an eligible child to continue to reside with their former foster carer once they turn 18. The local authority will be under a duty to support such arrangements, commonly known as “staying put” arrangements, until the young person reaches the age of 21. This is an issue on which many of us with a background in fostering and adoption and those involved with the all-party group on looked after children and care leavers from both sides of this House and in another place have worked for many years. I am delighted that we have been able to find the funding to do it, and I would like to thank the Earl of Listowel and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) for their work on this area. I am very sad that the late and much missed Paul Goggins is not with us today to celebrate this important step forward for young people leaving care. As was typical of Paul, I suspect he would have shied away from taking any of the plaudits, a trait that set him apart and from which we could all learn. We owe him a huge debt.

In welcoming this new clause, Janet Rich of The Care Leavers’ Foundation said:

“Step by step this Government has demonstrated that it truly understands the difficulties which face care leavers as they set out on the journey towards adulthood. Today’s announcement is another positive step on the journey towards State-as-parent acknowledging the duty they owe to this uniquely vulnerable group of young adults”.

[Bill Esterson]

I agree with the move the Minister is proposing. I think it is very good news. I also welcome what he said about Paul Goggins. Is this the start of a move to raise the age for care-leaving, given that many adult children stay at home much longer than this? Will the Minister say something about the potential for extending the care-leaving age for children in residential homes as well, as it is my understanding that that is staying at 18?

[Mr Timpson]

I share what I think is the hon. Gentleman’s ambition, and that of many others, to move away from seeing age as the sole indicator of whether a young person is ready to move on when they are in the care of the state, and, as we have done in the Care Bill and elsewhere in this Bill, to move towards looking at it as more of a continuum of care, trying to shape what is necessary for the young person around that young person, rather than simply using the blunt instrument of a birthday to decide their future.

This is an important step in relation to the three-quarters of children who are in foster care and securing their future into adulthood, but of course, as I made clear in an Adjournment debate only a week or so ago, I want to see us move towards this as a norm rather than an exception. That is why, although we have some much needed wide-reaching reforms to the residential care system, I see that as part of addressing how we can use residential care in a much better way than we have in the past, not simply seeing it as a last resort, which has too often been the default position. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman that I very much desire to see what we have done with the “staying put” arrangements for foster children spread more widely at the right time and when we have confidence that it will do what we want it to do, which is to improve the lives of those who are moving on from care and into independent living.

We worked closely with a number of organisations to bring about amendment 129, which introduces a new duty requiring maintained schools, academies and pupil referral units to support pupils with medical conditions. This issue was first raised in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders). We are currently consulting on draft statutory guidance and advice that will support the duty, but it is encouraging that the likes of Diabetes UK had this to say about the change:

“The Government’s announcement that it will amend the Children and Families Bill so that schools have a legal duty to support children with health needs has the potential to make a huge difference to the lives of around a million children.”

Amendment 130 adds a new clause to clarify the law in relation to the Secretary of State’s power to intervene when a local authority is failing to deliver children’s services to an adequate standard. Amendments 131 to 134 seek to improve the quality of children’s homes, and particularly to enable us to develop a regulation and inspection framework for children’s homes that sets high standards for children in residential care and offers them the support required to achieve positive outcomes. This has been a significant piece of policy development, founded on the formidable efforts of the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who is in her place tonight and whose own all-party group report and continued close involvement have been of huge assistance. As she knows, this is part of a wider reform package that is already under way and I have no intention of shying away from the necessary changes required to ensure that children who are in residential care get the best possible care based on the best possible decisions.

Amendment 135 introduces a new clause to require state-funded schools, including academies, to offer a free school meal to all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2. Giving every infant pupil a healthy and nutritious lunch will bring educational, health and social benefits, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Amendments 136 to 138, which cover the provisions on the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, will require the Children’s Commissioner to have “particular regard” to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and to give an account in his or her annual report of the steps taken to involve children and how their views were taken into account in the discharge of his or her functions.

Amendments 139 to 142 are minor and technical amendments relating to the part of the Bill that deals with the introduction of shared parental leave. They would give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to allow for a notice to curtail statutory maternity pay, maternity allowance or statutory adoption pay to be revoked subject to restrictions and conditions. Finally, consequential amendments 144 to 151 would make commencement dates clear in the Bill where necessary.

I commend these changes to all hon. Members. I firmly believe that they have improved our legislation and that, more important, they will make a profound and tangible difference to the lives of children and families.

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

This feels like the end of a long, hard road for the Bill. As the Minister said, the Bill has been substantially amended since it left the Commons, and for that we owe their lordships a huge debt of gratitude. I should like to take a few moments to acknowledge the efforts of some of the individuals involved in the process, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who did the heavy lifting on the Bill in the Commons. I also want to thank Baroness Hughes of Stretford and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, as well as the numerous Cross Benchers involved, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and my colleague in the shadow Education team, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who worked so hard on the Bill in Committee and more recently. I also want to put on record my gratitude to our friend, the late Paul Goggins, who worked so hard on so many aspects of the Bill.

20:30

As I have said, the Bill before us now is vastly changed and improved, but only because of the herculean efforts of those in the Lords. Sadly, before it left this place, the Minister rejected all but one of the amendments from Members in the Commons. This is a Government who appear to want to make legislation in the other place. I am delighted that the Minister has now accepted so many amendments. We generally welcome the changes on adoption and, in particular, Lords amendment 2, as well as the decision to recognise the importance of kinship and friends when considering children for adoption. I welcome amendments 3 to 7, and the limitation on the Secretary of State’s powers to force the outsourcing of adoption services, especially as we have such a capricious Secretary of State at present—

[Tim Loughton]

What does that mean?

[Steve McCabe]

I’ll buy you a dictionary.

We also welcome amendments 9 and 10, which add safeguards on regulations to give prospective adopters access to information on the register. Finally, in that section, we are happy with amendment 12, as we want children to have access to both parents after a separation when that is in the best interests of the child, but not when it involves an arbitrary division of the child’s time between the parents.

[Tim Loughton]

I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have now accepted the principle of shared parenting. Will he tell us what changed his mind? I seem to remember that he signed the early-day motion in favour of shared parenting but subsequently voted against the proposal in the 2006 Bill, so what has changed his mind? I am delighted that he has now come full circle on this matter.

[Steve McCabe]

I think there might be a slight difference between our definitions of shared parenting. That might be the simplest explanation. I am in favour of children having access to both parents, as I have said.

We are pleased that amendments to part 3 mean that the Minister now recognises the need to provide for children who have a disability but not a special educational need. I also welcome the Government’s conversion on the need to cater for young offenders, many of whom do have special educational needs. I congratulate the Minister on accepting amendment 128—the “staying put” amendment—which means that children in foster care will now be able to stay with their foster parents until the age of 21. I want to acknowledge how much personal effort he has devoted to these changes, along with all the others who have been arguing for them.

I also welcome efforts to improve the appeals system for parents, who often feel that the problem is not that their child has a disability or special need, but the lifelong battle they are forced to engage in with the authorities to get their child the help and support they deserve. Of course, the amendments covering young carers address a glaring omission in the original Bill, and we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) for all her efforts on that point.

Many more areas of the Bill have been vastly improved by their lordships’ intervention, but I wish to discuss the amendments standing in my name and those of my colleagues in the shadow education team, which deal with a number of concerns we have about how the Bill will work in practice. We do not intend to press any of these amendments to a vote, but that does not diminish our concern about how these issues will develop. On our amendment (a) to Lords amendment 43, we want to make it abundantly clear that the local offer must not be the minimum a local authority thinks it can get away with; it is no good producing legislation full of good intentions while simultaneously stripping resources from local authorities, thus making it almost impossible for them to deliver on these intentions. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, I hope that we can be assured tonight that the Minister will be instructing his officials to monitor the implementation of the Bill and ensure that reasonable local services are provided across local authorities, and that where omissions or obstacles are identified, he will intervene to make clear that it is not acceptable, and that it is not the intention of his legislation, to create a postcode lottery where access to services and provision depends on where someone lives and what impact Department for Communities and Local Government cuts have had on their local authority area.

On Lords amendment 73 to clause 37, and our further amendment, it is our wish to make it abundantly clear that there should be no get-out clause for local authorities in providing access to social care provision specified within an education, health and care plan. If that is not the case, this Bill will have failed and the Minister will have let down hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country who have taken him and his Government at their word that this is a brave new world of joined-up provision, designed to try to relieve them of their daily struggles for support. I welcome the Minister’s comments on the code of practice, but I want to know that he will step in if there is any question of a local authority seeking to evade its responsibilities to provide social care as specified in the plan.

Finally, we continue to doubt the entire wisdom of childminder agencies, but we recognise that this is largely a cost-saving measure by a Government who cannot give Ofsted the resources to inspect individual childminding provision. On clause 51D and Lords amendment 158, and our further amendment, we are seeking to make it crystal clear to the Minister that we do not want shoddy childminder agencies on the cheap, with little or no regard paid to the quality of care provided for the children. As the Minister will know, the Department did not consult effectively with childminders on this proposal, and it is not broadly welcomed by childminders. None the less the Government have gone ahead, so we need to be clear that Ofsted will have sufficient powers to check the quality of care provided by individuals within the agencies, especially at the first whiff of concern that the agency or individual provision is not up to standard. There is a potential conflict with childminder agencies, in that they will be both inspector and inspected, and they will have a financial incentive to recruit childminders.

[Mrs Hodgson]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about who is going to pay for all the costs of these childminder agencies? Will the costs be passed on to the childminder agency, which will in turn have to pass them on to the parents, thus increasing the cost of using that childminder?

[Steve McCabe]

The Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years and the Family and Childcare Trust say exactly that this model will increase costs for parents. A recent Netmums survey shows that people say that Ofsted inspection of childminders increases their confidence in the suitability of the childminders they choose, while an almost equal proportion say that regulation by an agency other than Ofsted would reduce their confidence. We will be keen to hear more about how the Minister will pilot his approach and how it will work in practice. Will he take on board the fact that parents will want to access reliable information about the quality of childminders, which they currently obtain through Ofsted inspection grades and reports?

[Charlie Elphicke]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s concern for childminders. Did the number of childminders rise or fall under the previous Government?

[Steve McCabe]

I understand that the number has fallen since this Government came to office, but the hon. Gentleman misses the point. I am talking about childminding on the cheap, yet with a service of insufficient quality to make it worth having. If that is the outcome, it will be understandable when parents do not agree with him.

The Government have already scrapped local authorities’ power to consider the sufficiency of child care in their area. If they fail to equip Ofsted with proper powers to investigate what is happening at a childminder’s place of work, they risk exposing vulnerable young children to untold risk. I am sure that the Minister would not want to be associated with that legacy.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman and I both know that the number of childminders plummeted because the previous Government engaged in a war on childminders. It is disappointing that he tries to cloak the continuation of that war under the cover of standards.

[Steve McCabe]

The hon. Gentleman is probably wrong because I think he is referring to the impact of Ofsted registration—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) can neigh as much he likes, but we are talking about the quality of child care.

[Mrs Hodgson]

My understanding is that the situation is as my hon. Friend set out. When Ofsted started to inspect childminders, dormant childminders—people such as me who were registered, but had never practised childminding—fell off the books. The people affected either were not active childminders or were not prepared to improve their quality and follow Ofsted standards.

[Steve McCabe]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope that there is now some agreement on what happened.

I do not wish to detain the House any longer. We welcome the Lords amendments and we are broadly in favour of the Bill, although we think its implementation will be all important. We urge the Minister to make it clear that, as far as he is concerned, getting the Bill through Parliament is the first stage; the question of whether it operates as he intends is the real test of whether it is indeed landmark legislation.

[Mr Buckland]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). Although he has come to his brief towards the end of the Bill’s passage, I know that he shares the aspirations of those of us who care deeply about not only children with special educational needs, but children and young people in general, which is why I warmly welcome the Lords amendments.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind if I remind him of our lengthy debates in Committee, when we were joined by the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), as well as hon. Members who are not in the Chamber. I do so because I think that the Bill’s passage through this House offers a very positive example of how scrutiny can work. The length of time we took—the Committee’s proceedings were extended by several sittings to allow all the debates—allowed us to lay a good foundation so that their lordships could consider our concerns and act upon them.

20:45

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am grateful to be in the Chamber tonight to hear the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. Does he agree that it was the hundreds of amendments and the hundreds of hours—it felt like hundreds—of debate in the Commons that laid the groundwork that allowed the Lords to bring forward the amendments that the Minister is able to accept today? If that is how it has to be, then we did our job, but it is a shame that more amendments could not have been made in the Commons.

[Mr Buckland]

I agree that it would have been nice to have made some of the amendments in the Commons, but I understand that in the other place there is more time for deliberation and for votes, so the fact that we reached this stage in that way does not trouble me. We are in the right place and the legislation is now in good order. Let us not forget that the process that got us to this stage predates First Reading, because there was an extensive consultation process. A consultation paper was issued in 2011, followed by many months of proper consultation not only with education providers and the third sector, but with children and young people themselves, whose views have been brought to bear in large measure in the Bill.

Only this morning I visited one of the special schools in Swindon, the Uplands secondary school, where the Uplands Educational Trust was holding its annual general meeting. It is a new organisation that has been set up purely to start offering post-19 provision for young people who have gone through the school system and hit the cliff edge of transition, which is still a problem that bedevils parents, carers and young people in the education system and beyond. It is an admirable and excellent initiative that I fully support. I believe that such organisations will be the mainstay of enhancing and developing post-19 provision right up to the age of 25 and beyond for many young people with disabilities and special educational needs. Without the input of such organisations, I worry that the aspirations in the Bill for extending provision to those crucial years will not be met.

The message that came home loud and clear from parents and carers today was that although they warmly welcome the Bill, the implementation will be key. Once again I heard from many parents who find the transition period the most difficult one of all, despite the good intentions and the good work of local authorities, such as Swindon borough council. The message that they wished me to convey to the House is that in many cases, involving the parents and carers—the greatest experts when it comes to their children and young people—is vital to making transition work.

If we are to get that right, the code of practice that will be brought into force later this year, as set out in the Bill, will be crucial. I am glad that the code will be approved through the affirmative procedure in this House in its first iteration, with subsequent revisions made using the negative procedure, which should allow for frequent updating. The existing code has not been updated since 2001—hardly the embodiment of the living instrument that I and many others expect the code of practice to become. It is my sincere hope and fervent wish that the Government take on board the failure of that code to keep up to date with modern practice and to ensure that it truly is a living and adaptable instrument that reflects not only the aspirations of children and young people with special needs and disabilities, but the reality of experience on the ground. Implementation is everything.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the very important issue of transition. I share his thoughts and concerns and thank him for raising it.

[Mr Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She and I have spoken about these issues in the past, and I know that she shares on behalf of her constituents the aspirations that I have for mine.

Other hon. Members have mentioned implementation, but it is important to reiterate the point. I stress the importance of the pilot scheme for the single point of redress as regards the appeals mechanism for parents who have met with a refusal or a decision that is not, in their view, in the interests of the child they look after. I argued long and hard with my hon. Friend the Minister for a streamlining of the system. My worry was that despite the proper attempt to bring health, education and social care together, the courts and tribunal system would still be fragmented in the sense of people having to launch and lodge appeals in different formats.

My hon. Friend has rightly placed great emphasis on mediation. I support the provisions that relate to the use of mediation for parents, because we do not want more of the adversarial combat that has bedevilled the fight that many families have had to undergo to obtain SEN provision. It is important that the pilot becomes a reality, that the intentions in the Bill are not left to lie gathering dust, and that there is a proper evaluation of the pilot so that, if it proves necessary, we can go down the road of having a single point of redress provided by the first-tier tribunal. That is important in making the system user-friendly, simple, streamlined and clear.

Some of the most important amendments deal with the extension of the duty on local authorities to identify not only children and young people with SEN but all children and young people with a disability. That is a hugely important concession that goes a long way towards satisfying the concerns of those of us who were worried about what happens to children and young people who are, for example, on school action or school action plus and would not be caught by the provisions. These amendments, which are replicated throughout the Bill, will make a huge difference to the lives of young people with a disability. They also give added impetus to the need for early identification of a health issue. Leaving these matters until full-time education is not good enough when there is so much more we can do during the early years and, indeed, the very early years to identify disability so that, way before the child gets to school, action is taken not only to diagnose the condition, whatever it may be, but to assist them and their family with its consequences.

I warmly welcome the whole-family approach that is now being taken in the context of carers. Together with other hon. Members, I supported amendments on young carers. I was very pleased that the recommendations about parent carers made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve, were also taken up in the other place. We now genuinely have a whole-family approach to the assessment of carers, and that is absolutely vital if we are really going to make a change on the ground.

My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the position of young people in detention. The glaring deficiency in the Bill as originally drafted has now been amply dealt with by the very comprehensive amendments that were accepted in the other place. My friend Lord Ramsbotham deserves huge credit for the tireless work that he does on this and other matters. Particularly important is the fact that the disability of difficulty with speech and language communication will now be identified as a health issue at the earliest possible stage, and I think that will have hugely positive consequences for those young people affected.

I think we can say that this is a Bill of which we can be justly proud and that we will be able to look back on it in the same way we look back on the Education Act 1981, which first legislated on the SEN concepts with which we are now so familiar. That Act is now being succeeded by a Bill that takes on those concepts for a new generation and develops them in a humane, comprehensive and effective way. As I have said, however, if we do not get the implementation right on the ground, and if the local offers I expect to appear across the country are no more than mere signposting, we will have failed. To use a well-worn phrase, this is not the end or the beginning of the end, but it is the end of the beginning when it comes to judging the effectiveness of this historic Bill.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I welcome the “staying put” Lords amendment 128, which means that a young person can stay with their foster carers until they are 21. The Fostering Network ran an excellent campaign, bringing to our attention the many examples of young people in care who may have experienced poor parental care and neglect, who often go into care for the first time in their early teens and who need more time and stability to prepare for adult life. It is good that they will now be able to stay—provided they wish to do so, of course—with foster parents who will see them through that transition to independence. That has been very much welcomed by foster carers in my constituency.

I also congratulate the Earl of Listowel on his determined efforts to persuade the Minister to change his mind after his initial rebuff to hon. Members. It was clear that the Minister had great sympathy with the proposal and it is to his credit that he was able to find the money to underpin it. I regret that Paul Goggins, who, sadly, died earlier this year and ran a tremendous campaign on the issue, is not here to enjoy its successful conclusion.

I want to raise an issue with regard to the draft guidance issued on 4 February to support the Bill’s Third Reading in the House of Lords. A paragraph on preparations for ceasing to be looked after states that

“local authorities should start discussions with the young person and foster carer regarding the option of staying put as early as possible, ideally before the young person reaches the age of 16.”

Another part of the guidance states that there is no minimum time the young person needs to have lived with their foster carer prior to turning 18. One of my slight concerns about the way in which the guidance is written is that it might be interpreted as only being a consideration in a long-standing foster placement, whereas the provision gives young people the option to stay put with foster parents, even if they have only been there for a few weeks. It is important that this is seen as an option for those vulnerable young people who may have left a children’s home aged 16 and were not able to cope in the accommodation they were then offered. Foster care would be a good option for some of those young people in order to help put them back on their feet.

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Although she correctly notes that this is draft guidance that is subject to further discussion, I believe that, in the main, it reflects the Bill well. I am, of course, happy to take up any specific concerns, particularly that which she has raised this evening.

[Ann Coffey]

I thank the Minister for that. I also welcome his amendments, which mean that Ofsted will be able to inspect children’s homes for good standards rather than minimum standards. It seemed strange that one of the young girls involved in the child sexual exploitation case in Rochdale had run away 100 times from a children’s home, yet that home was deemed “good” by an Ofsted inspection. I hope that will not happen again.

I very much look forward to the Minister’s proposals for introducing a reform package for the qualifications and training of staff working in children’s homes. It cannot be right that the most damaged children are often cared for by the least qualified staff. I wonder whether he might give us a time scale for bringing forward those proposals.

20:59

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey).

I want to speak in support of the large group of Lords amendments that extend the scope of clauses 22 to 32 to include disabled children, as well as those with special educational needs, but I first want to place on the record my thanks and those of my Committee to the Minister for his close co-operation on the Bill over the long period of its development. His actions to improve it in response to our recommendations and those of many others have been greatly appreciated. Something about how he has conducted himself in bilateral and multilateral meetings has endeared himself to the House, which might explain why he has been given the accolade of Minister of the year. I will not seek to curse his future career with such praise any more, so I shall move swiftly on.

As has been said, when the achievements of this coalition Government are reviewed, the Bill will rank highly among them. This large group of amendments certainly strengthens the Bill. When the Education Committee conducted our pre-legislative scrutiny in the autumn of 2012, the evidence we heard made a strong case for the inclusion of disabled children, with or without SEN, in the scope of entitlement provision and education, health and care plans.

Mencap emphasised that it was undesirable that eligibility for much of the support in the Bill could be engaged only via an educational trigger, meaning that children and young people with primary health and care needs might not be identified as having SEN until they reached an educational setting. In her evidence to us, the former Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather)—sadly, she is no longer in her place—acknowledged the

“huge crossover with children with disabilities”.

The omission of reference to the disabled seemed to run directly contrary to the Government’s laudable aspiration to achieve the earliest possible intervention for those who need extra support. I am therefore delighted that the Bill has been amended in that way.

The only weakness I identify is the continued lack of regulation on the local offer for children and young people mandated by clause 30. The weight of evidence received by my Committee clearly supported the introduction of minimum standards for the local offer—the Minister referred to that earlier—which the Government have consistently resisted. I appreciate that Ministers have taken steps to increase the accountability and responsiveness of the offer made by local authorities, but I ask the Minister to undertake carefully to monitor the standards set by different local authorities across the country so that some do not duck their responsibilities, as other hon. Members have mentioned.

I want to speak in favour of Lords amendments 69 and 70. In our scrutiny report, my Committee welcomed the introduction of integrated education, health and care plans—or EHCPs, as doubtless no one will remember to call them—which are at the centre of those amendments. We were clear in paragraph 98 of our report that

“the cut-off point for EHCPs should be when educational outcomes are achieved”,

rather than by reference to any specific age. We heard from Di Roberts, the principal of Brockenhurst college, who gave the example of two learners with profound deafness: they were on marine engineering apprenticeships and had to have signers to help them with their training. They are precisely the young people who need extra support to follow their ambitions so that they can succeed in life. The Bill should not open a door to local authorities to take that support away, simply because someone needs longer to complete their education or training. A young person’s age is a comparatively superficial factor that should not be used to determine whether they would continue to benefit from an EHCP.

I want quickly to mention Lords amendment 110. It affects clause 67, which governs the new code of practice as regards special educational needs. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified when exactly the new SEN code of practice is expected to be published. I am told that it might not be published until June, which would leave very little time for the new system to come into force from September. I appreciate that it will take up to three years to migrate existing statement holders to the new code of practice, but I know that many parents would appreciate learning the latest information about the timetable.

I am aware of the time, so I shall touch on Lords amendment 128 only briefly. It will enable young people in foster care to live at home until the age of 21 if that is right for them and their foster family agrees. The Select Committee has long been concerned about the position of children who are fostered or in care, and about the accommodation and support that is provided for them. We welcome the announcement of greater support for 16 to 17-year-olds that was made by the Department last summer. This amendment continues the spirit of that work. It is both sensible and sensitive to young people’s needs. The comfort that is derived from having a family home does not end at 18. Allowing young people who may have had particularly disturbed childhoods to continue to enjoy the support of their foster family until 21 is quite simply the right thing to do. The Minister and the Government deserve to be congratulated on adopting the amendment.

I was delighted to see Lords amendment 129 included in the Bill. It inserts a duty to support pupils with medical conditions. Members from across the House will have had constituents come to them with stories of the difficulty of getting fairly straightforward and simple support for their children in school. They will have heard tales of parents having to leave work to pick up their kids and take them elsewhere. I spoke in favour of an amendment of this nature that was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) at Report stage in the Commons last June.

I have had the opportunity to meet the Crawforth family from my constituency, most recently on a school visit a few days ago. Their son suffers from type 1 diabetes. A recent study by Diabetes UK found that 46% of young people with diabetes—almost half—do not have a health care plan for managing their condition at school. Of those who have a plan, 17% do not feel confident that it is being implemented. Those statistics concern parents up and down the country, and understandably so. Lords amendment 129 will require schools to engage directly with the families of children with serious, ongoing health concerns and to co-operate with local NHS authorities to design strategies to reduce the risks. Its inclusion strengthens the Bill.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Stuart]

There is very little time left so, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will not give way.

The proposed statutory guidance under Lords amendment 129 will ensure that schools have to observe national standards. That will go a long way to ending the current lottery in respect of children’s safety at school.

Lords amendment 135 represents something of an exception to my generally positive feelings about the Bill. I want to be clear at the outset that free school meals are a matter of basic social justice and I wholeheartedly support them. However, I am wary about extending free school meals to all pupils in reception and years 1 and 2, regardless of how well off their parents are. I ask the Minister whether it would not have been better, at a time of austerity, to target the extra funding more carefully, either by extending free school meals to families whose earnings place them just above the current entitlement threshold or by providing extra funding for valuable schemes such as breakfast clubs to help the pupils who most need them. Perhaps the funding could have been used to ensure that sixth-form colleges and further education colleges are not penalised by having to pay VAT or through 18-year-olds losing funding because of pressures elsewhere in the budget. Like any Government spending, this policy has to be paid for. It might not worry our coalition partners, but this amendment means that the Government will find themselves in the bizarre position of taxing families on low and middle incomes to subsidise children from affluent homes.

There is also a wider question about the priorities in our education system. Last Friday, I visited Walkington primary school in my constituency. It is a great school. Over the past three years, thanks to the hard work of its teachers, it has moved from the 52nd to the 12th percentile in terms of progress. It has achieved that despite receiving £500 less per head than the national median funding for primary schools. Funding is a constant struggle, not just for Walkington, but for schools across my home county of the East Riding of Yorkshire, which is the area that receives the third lowest amount of funding in the country. In that context, I find it hard to believe that some of the £600 million that has been allocated to the free school meals policy could not have been better spent to promote fairer outcomes for all, wherever they may live.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this important debate on this important Bill. I will start by declaring an interest as a family law barrister. Over many years, I have represented parents, guardians, grandparents, children, social workers and many other people. I have no doubt that the Bill will improve the prospects of some of the most vulnerable children in our society, in particular those who are in foster care and those who are placed for adoption.

We in this House often focus on the issues that divide us, but matters such as the prospects for looked after children always unite the House, and efforts have been made across the parties and in the other place to progress the Bill in a positive way, and to work on the detail and reach our agreed position this evening. I remember fondly—as will many other hon. Members, I am sure—the many hours spent on the Bill Committee considering these important measures.

I wish briefly to highlight two points this evening. The first is the extremely positive development in part 5 of the Bill that makes provision for young people to remain, or, as the phrase goes, to “stay put”, in foster care until the age of 21. It is almost impossible for any of us to imagine how, in addition to all the challenges that young people face when considering their careers and their journey into adult life, some will have the added uncertainty of their whole home support network being in possible jeopardy.

Too often I have seen court cases involving older teenage children where, despite the best efforts of all those involved—the judiciary, solicitors, social work team and so on—and a care plan that is always carefully worded and constructed along with the legislation, there is always a concern that there is only so much the court can do. Previously, up to the age of 16 or 17 there was that uncertainty, and a gap in the provision of services. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister in leading on these measures. The whole House has worked extremely hard to identify those gaps and to ensure that continued provision, which is much needed for young people as they move into the adult world. The Bill will need time to be implemented, and we will also need time to evaluate and assess the success of what is being proposed. Nevertheless, I think that all involved will see tonight as a significant step forward for looked after children.

My second point is about clause 11. The House has had the benefit of the expertise of Baroness Butler-Sloss who assisted in that section of the Bill. As the former president of the family division, she may perhaps offer more expertise than most of us when it comes to understanding how the drafting of the clause may be interpreted in the family courts. I have no doubt that the starting point for all courts when considering contact and residence applications has been, and will continue to be, that children will always benefit from a relationship with both of their parents, unless there is a good reason to move away from that.

As a family practitioner I have no doubt that contact and residence cases can be the most emotive and difficult litigation for individuals to commence. Put simply, it is to do with the relationship that people have with their own flesh and blood. In advance of such cases, those around the clients involved, such as the solicitors, not only give legal advice but often take on the role of friend and confidant as they guide the parents—or increasingly the grandparents—through such litigation. That highly emotive aspect to these cases is why the drafting of the Bill is so crucial—drafting is crucial for all legislation, but it is a particular issue with this clause.

Clause 11 is entitled, “Welfare of the child: parental involvement”. That maintains the important balance of children having a meaningful relationship with both parents, but it does in some ways move away from suggesting that there is any division in terms of time, which is different from what some of the other proposed phrases may have done. That was, of course, never the intention of using a phrase such as “shared parenting”, but I understand why a parent involved in litigation might interpret the words in such a way.

I thank all those involved, including the voluntary organisations, those in the family courts and, as I said earlier, Members from across the House and the other place who have worked extremely hard on this Bill. I commend the Minister who has done extremely well in leading on this important Bill. I for one look forward to this positive and progressive Bill being granted Royal Assent.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

As a member of the Bill Committee, I would like to comment on two amendments made by their lordships. The first could improve the Bill, but I have some reservations about the second. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for reminding the House of the lengthy consultation period ahead of the Bill, which gave all interest groups the opportunity to contribute to both the Bill Committee and the Select Committee on Justice.

21:20

One aspect of interest to me in Committee and on Lords amendments—I tabled amendments—is special educational needs. Approaching 90% of SEN children do not benefit from having a statement, making it harder for them to access the support they need. I was therefore delighted that a number of proposals in the Bill will improve local accountability and delivery of services. That has been raised with me by Scope and Ambitious about Autism, which have campaigned effectively on that.

The Bill seeks to establish the right of parents to have their comments on the local offer of services published. However, amendment 47 was introduced to force local authorities to publish not only the comments, but what action the authority plans to take as a result of them. I support that amendment because I believe it is important that local authorities develop workable action plans in conjunction with parents, who should be part of the process and not simply have a plan imposed upon them. I therefore hope that the proposal means that we begin to see parents at the heart of decision making, and that that will become part of the code of practice.

It is important that the Government recognise the difficulties that families often face in accessing specialist support when that support is located out of area. I therefore hope that the code of practice ensures the promotion of specialist services that are accessible and are provided as locally as possible, perhaps by integrating the development and provision of specialist services with other local community services, and not separately, as so often happens at present.

One further point raised with me by, among others, the Special Educational Consortium, is the need for a single point of redress, which the Minister has mentioned. He recently stated that there is to be a review, but will he take the opportunity this evening to give the Government’s position on a single point of redress and the review, and on the pilot of the complaints and appeals process for education, health and care plans? Clarity would be very much appreciated.

On part 2 of the Bill, I am conscious that I am following my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee), who spoke to the amendment to clause 11. The noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss, who moved the amendment, is widely acknowledged as the country’s greatest expert, so it is with some trepidation that I raise the issue. She sought to clarify what exactly the clause means in practical application regarding non-resident parents. My fear is that, in so doing, the clause, which sought to enshrine the right of the child to have a meaningful ongoing relationship with both parents, is watered down. I seek reassurance from the Minister on that point.

The welfare of the child should be the court’s paramount concern, but it should not be the court’s only concern. The legal system must ensure that the child’s welfare comes first, but it should not ignore the welfare of parents, whether a mother or a father. Few people consider the emotional and psychological impact that enforced separation from one’s own flesh and blood can have. The unintended negative consequence of the paramountcy principle is that the feelings of separated parents are simply not considered. That situation must change in the interests of justice for parents. It is also sound public policy and will lead to children being less damaged by their parents’ separation.

However, even considering only the benefits of shared parenting from the perspective of child welfare, volumes of research show that shared parenting is hugely beneficial to children, especially when a father is separated from his daughter. Contact is more likely to decline if the child is female, meaning that young girls pay a heavier price for divorce and separation than young boys, as Dr Linda Nielsen’s recent paper sets out. Indeed, the paramountcy principle applied correctly so that the welfare of the child comes first means encouraging shared parenting, not discouraging or paying lip service to it. That is the core of my concern with the amendment. It appears to erode the positive steps that the clause originally made towards a culture of shared parenting.

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

My hon. Friend is exceptionally well known for her commitment to improving the lives of children, especially those with special educational needs and those caught up in what can be the misery of separated parents. However, does she agree that the major part of the problem is the failure of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and the courts to intervene and take a genuine stand against obstructive parents who engage in parental alienation and prevent court order access, which damages both the relationship between, and the mental health of, the child and the non-resident parent?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. CAFCASS has an incredibly difficult job to do, but too often it fails to deal with issues such as parental alienation, and it is important that we consider the problem of poor enforcement of contact orders when non-resident parents are granted access but resident parents ignore them.

The current situation does not work, and both coalition partners gave commitments on several areas relating to family law reform. Some of those issues—mediation and dispute resolution, better enforcement of contact orders and, I hope, reform of court practices—will be genuinely improved by the Bill, but both coalition partners also gave clear commitments on the subject of shared parenting or shared contact. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister said that courts are seen as creating winners and losers, and it is vital that both parents feel confident that the court will consider fully the benefits of their involvement.

The Government have worked hard to strike the right balance, called for by groups such as Families Need Fathers, UK Family Law Reform and the Association for Shared Parenting. Clearly, the legislative intent of clause 11 was to bridge the gap between delivering tangible progress on shared parenting while ensuring the paramount need of the child’s welfare was preserved through a presumption in favour of shared contact, providing there was no good reason to oppose it.

I was elected on a promise to seek a legal presumption in favour of automatic shared contact, something that the Bill achieved before the amendment was added, but clause 11, as amended, will not deliver what we promised. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point and confirm that I am incorrect in that. There is a whole library of research showing the benefits to a child of a proper, meaningful and ongoing relationship with the non-resident parent. If, as a society, we are genuinely interested in tackling the impact of family breakdown, we must start by encouraging and enabling non-resident parents to remain active in their children’s lives.

The amendment plays into the hands of obstructive resident parents who wish to prevent a child from having a meaningful, ongoing relationship with an absent parent, and puts us back into a situation of winners and losers. Some 10% to 20% of separations—often those that are the most rancorous and upsetting, and in which winners and losers are created—come before the courts. It is right that the court should be bound by the paramountcy principle, but the culture of shared parenting should be driven home, forcing hitherto hostile and oppositional parents to work together in the interests of their child.

I hope that the Minister can provide me with the reassurance I seek. Apart from that, I believe this to be an excellent Bill on which we have all worked long and hard. I support the rest of the clauses and the amendments, and thank him for his attention on these matters.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I, too, have a long history with the Bill, having served in Committee, and being here for its final Commons stage today. It has been a real privilege to watch a master class from my hon. Friend the Minister in how to pilot a Bill with great dignity, courtesy and endless quantities of patience.

I also wish to pay tribute to the shadow Minister, who is no longer in her place but performed her role in Committee with great aplomb. She has handed over to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), whom I pressed earlier on the subject of childminders. It has been a pleasure to serve on this landmark Bill, and it will also be a pleasure to see it brought into force.

I shall concentrate on one basic statistic. In 1986, the employment rate for mothers whose youngest child is under three was 25%. Today, it is 56% and rising. That matters because it says everything about how the world has changed. If so many more women are in work—more than half of all mothers with children under three—child care is instantly an issue. That is why I raised the issue of childminders. In my constituency, if a family is above the benefits threshold but cannot afford £10,000 or so a year for a nursery, it has a real problem. That is why childminders are so important for that intermediate child care and why I make the case for the need to consider people in that salary band. There is a lot of deprivation in my constituency, and many people in low-skilled, low-paid work are in that position.

It also means that, because both partners are in work, parental love, affection and child care have to be juggled. Involvement in the child’s life has been transformed in the past 25 years: fathers are more involved with their children. Both parents are more involved with their children than ever before because of social change. That is why I welcome the changes in the Bill that relate to parental leave. Shared parental leave is a recognition of how the world has changed so very much.

I have raised the issue of contact many times in this place: the rights of children to have access to their parents. I thank the shadow Minister for using that formulation, because it is very important. It is a damning statistic that, of the 3 million children who live apart from a parent, 1 million have no contact with a parent three years after separation. That is really tragic, particularly given the way the world has changed. One parent, who was heavily involved in a child’s upbringing, is suddenly no longer there at all. That is destabilising to the child. That is why, in times past, I brought in a Bill to this House to enforce contact properly and place a duty on all. The right is not the right of the parent, but the right of the child to know and have a relationship with both their parents: the right of the child to have access to their parents.

This massive social change over the past 25 years matters so much because not all our judiciary are young people living the lives of modern parents seeking to get by. Not all academics or our social work establishment are young and as aware as they could be in their daily lives of this particular situation. It is for that reason that I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on her passionate, heartfelt and deeply thoughtful speech. She is absolutely right in all she says. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on taking up this case originally and putting it forward.

The statistic on the involvement of both parents in the life of their child is particularly relevant to clause 11, which states

“unless the contrary is shown, that involvement of that parent in the life of the child concerned will further the child’s welfare.”

I, too, share the concerns raised today that the amendment originally tabled by Baroness Butler-Sloss in the Lords Grand Committee risks watering that down. I recognise my hon. Friend the Minister’s assurances when he says that he is confident that the amendment does not alter the meaning of the clause or its intended effect. I hope that that will be reflected in the guidance issued to the family division, and that the family division will take note of that. It is really important that this principle is not ceded, particularly given that Baroness Butler-Sloss included not just the irrelevant issue of the division of a child’s time that resulted from the Norgrove report getting distracted by the Australian experience and the issue of the direct and indirect access.

It would not be right to have a situation in which the only contact for a parent who has been heavily involved in a child’s life is a phone call at Christmas, a book of photographs or the odd letter exchange. That does not constitute a right to know and a relationship with both parents. The right of children to have access to both their parents is essential. It matters because they may wish to turn one parent or to the other parent for mentorship, guidance, love and affection. We should enable that to happen. We should recognise that the world has changed.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Of course, children will have access to their further family through both parents, so it is critical that they have an absolute right to direct, physical contact, and that should be a presumption, unless there is a proven safety reason.

21:30

[Charlie Elphicke]

I have great sympathy with my hon. Friend, who has been a staunch supporter of this principle in her time here. I thank her for her support in times past.

In closing, I want to note what Baroness Butler-Sloss said in another place:

“I had very useful discussions with an organisation, Families Need Fathers, and I ask the Minister to see that any information that is sent out to various organisations also goes to that one because it has an utterly sensible approach. It is very keen that the non-resident parent should have a proper connection with the child to further the child’s welfare, but recognises that it is not shared parenting. It is an extremely useful organisation and I commend it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 February 2014; Vol. 752, c. 206.]

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his speech and on introducing his private Member’s Bill, which followed mine a couple of years ago. I am concerned that Butler-Sloss’s amendment will water down the rights that we want to create for parents of either sex who do not generally live with the family. I urge the Minister, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to be absolutely firm on this point—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is so long he has lost sight of the fact that there has been a sex change in the Chair. I think he has completed his intervention, for which the House is inordinately grateful.

[Mr Binley]

You would not want me to respond, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Probably not.

[Charlie Elphicke]

May I be the first to welcome you to the Chair, Mr Speaker? I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), who has been passionate about these issues for many years. Many of us have made common cause on this matter.

In conclusion, I simply enjoin the Minister to take up Baroness Butler-Sloss’s recommendation, in line with the guidance of Families Need Fathers, and to work positively to ensure that children have a right of access to both their parents and that the amendment is not misconstrued.

[Mr Timpson]

I would like to thank all hon. Members who have engaged in this detailed—

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Minister has asked the leave of the House, has he not?

[Mr Timpson]

It almost passed my lips, and it has done now.

This has been a detailed debate of the amendments made to the Bill in another place. The changes are a testament to the dedication of both Houses to making the Bill the best it can be, and I completely understand the interest of hon. Members on both sides of the House in its implementation: it is an excellent Bill, and it is only right that we ensure its successful implementation. Provided we can find time for early and proper consideration of the secondary legislation, we expect to implement the Bill’s reforms quickly so that they can begin to make a real difference for children and families across the country.

I will seek to write to all hon. Members who have asked detailed questions in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) asked when the revised code of practice would be made available. It will be made available as soon as possible after Royal Assent, but I am sure he will appreciate that we want to get it right. My hon. Friends the Members for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Northampton South (Mr Binley)—I hope that the latter heard my earlier praise for his involvement in this important clause—raised important points. As the Bill stands, the presumption is clear, and I do not share the scepticism of some hon. Members that it has been diluted to the point of having no effect. This is a considerable change and should not be underestimated.

The principle and purpose that the Bill enshrines in law, in conjunction with many other measures we are taking, both through the Bill and in non-legislative ways, will help to ensure that more children have the opportunity to have a relationship with both parents. To enable that to happen in practice, we have made sure that the Judicial College is aware of the provision in clause 11 and the Government’s objective behind it. Although it is for the judiciary to consider its required training itself, we will continue to work with it to ensure that there is clear information about the intended effect and operation of the clause, so that they can be reflected, if need be, in future training.

It is important to make it clear that this is about the right of the child. The reason we have set about introducing the provisions in this clause—over many years, both in opposition and now in government—is to put across a strong message to many of the families who find themselves at the door of a court: we are interested in only one thing, which is making sure that any children involved in a case get the opportunity to have their rights put first and, as a consequence, have a meaningful relationship with both sides of their parentage.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Timpson]

Very briefly.

[Tessa Munt]

Will the Minister clarify absolutely that the presumption is that children should always have a right to have access to both parents, unless it is proven that it is not safe for them to be with one parent or the other?

[Mr Timpson]

As I made clear earlier in the debate, the paramountcy principle still holds in this case, as does the need to ensure that the child in question would be safe. That has to be the case, but what kicks in under those circumstances is the presumption that the child will have a relationship with both parents. That is an important change that we should all support.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to share some well deserved thanks.

[Jim Shannon]

On a day when 3.2 million diabetics are registered in the United Kingdom and we are seeing a rise in type 1 diabetes among children, will the Minister confirm that the duty to support pupils with medical conditions means that insulin pumps will be available and one or two teachers will be available and able to understand how to deal with diabetic hypos?

[Mr Timpson]

The clause in question puts the “Managing medicines” guidance on a statutory footing. That has long been called for and is a significant change. The equipment that will be available in schools is still a matter of discretion, but we look at these things carefully, particularly when it comes to defibrillators and the important role they play in schools, as well as other public spaces. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman is pleased with the advance that we have made on that aspect of the Bill.

It now feels like a very long time ago that work on the Bill began. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said at the end of Committee last April:

“We seem to have been scrutinising the Bill for months”.––[Official Report, Children and Families Public Bill Committee, 25 April 2013; c. 815.]

That was nine months ago, so it is fair to say that we have been working on this Bill for a long time now. However, it is only right to acknowledge the four Select Committees that conducted pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill—the Select Committees on Education and on Justice, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Lords Select Committee on Adoption Legislation—and the great start they got us off to.

We have had some excellent debates in this House on the Bill. I would like to thank hon. Members for their participation and for how supportive they have been in helping the Government to develop the Bill. An illustration of how much work has been done is that, in both Houses together, 1,153 amendments have been tabled and debated. The Bill started off as a very good piece of legislation; with all the constructive and well-meaning work that we and Members of another place have done on it, I believe it is now a great piece of legislation. We should all be very pleased about that and the benefits that children, young people and their families will see as a consequence.

I am sure we all appreciate the hard work of the Clerks of the House and the Hansard reporters throughout the passage of the Bill, which I know has involved some late nights for them, for which I take some responsibility. If it is any consolation to them, I have also had a fair few sleepless nights—not that my children and family have had much sympathy with that. I also thank the many organisations that have engaged with us on the Bill, all of which have made an important contribution. I hope that they will continue to work with the Department as we proceed with the key task of successful implementation. A good many Ministers have been involved in the various stages of the Bill, and they deserve thanks as well.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who initiated this work with such vigour and aplomb. I thank my hon. Friend the Members for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), with whom I have had the delight of sharing the Front Bench as a minority male. Importantly, I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who shares my passionate determination to improve the lives of our most disadvantaged young people, and has not a capricious bone in his body: he has only compassionate bones.

I thank all our colleagues in the Department for Education, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who have done so much to put departmental boundaries aside in the interests of children and families. Finally, I particularly thank my friends in the other place: Lord Nash—who has been stoic, good-humoured and unflappable—Lord Faulks, Lord McNally, Viscount Younger and Earl Howe; and I thank my noble Friend Baroness Northover for picking up the baton from Baroness Garden with such prowess and nerveless enthusiasm.

It has been an undiluted and, as it has turned out, a long-standing privilege to work on a Bill which will make a real difference to children and families, and which we have been able to manage in this place in ways that have been very constructive and often even consensual. In that context, I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Washington and Sunderland West for their leadership during the Bill’s earlier outings in this House, and to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who have continued to work in the same spirit today.

Today we have recognised, and heard from, Members in all parts of the House who are passionate and committed in their pursuit of improvements for our most vulnerable children. Let me repeat my thanks to all of them, and particularly to those who were members of the Public Bill Committee between 5 March and 25 April last year: my hon. Friends the Members for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), for Erewash (Jessica Lee) and for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), and the hon. Members for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), for North West Durham (Pat Glass), for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), for Manchester Central, for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and for Corby (Andy Sawford).

It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the pivotal roles of my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Sir Richard Ottaway) and my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Anne Milton) and for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) in securing the Bill’s safe passage by virtue of their professional and tactful stewardship. Numerous officials from various Departments have worked very hard on the Bill, and I am sure that the House will want thank them as well.

I cannot end my speech without singling out for special mention the Bill team and other Government officials, led with such distinction by Jenny Preece. I thank Jamie, Alan, Lara, Helen, Ruth, Katy, Lizzie, the lead lawyers Sofie, Paula and their colleagues, Phil, Stephen, Jonathan and everyone in the special educational needs team, and all the officials and lawyers—too many to mention—in several Departments who have contributed to the development, drafting and scrutiny of the Bill. Their efforts usually go unnoticed and undetected, and are carried out without fanfare. I, along with other Ministers and all Members—as well as you, Mr Speaker—owe them enormous gratitude. It has been an absolute delight to work with each and every one of them.

I hope that the House will agree that all the amendments made by another place are beneficial to the Bill and, ultimately, to children and their families. If so, we can then move on speedily to the task of turning this legislation into something that has meaning and impact, and, above all, is able to make young lives better.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 120, 126 to 149 and 151 to 176 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 15, 17 to 20, 22, 25, 27 to 31, 33 to 35, 37, 39, 41, 43, 44, 64, 66, 85, 88 to 90, 92, 94, 96, 97, 104 to 109, 115 to 118, 126 to 129, 135, 144, 149 and 176.

Flooding

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

15:35

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make a statement on the Government’s recent response to the flooding in Somerset, and to clarify his comments this weekend accusing the Environment Agency of giving poor advice.

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

As evident from the dark skies outside, we continue to face extraordinary and sustained wet weather. Cobra has met every day since my oral statement on Thursday, with all Departments working closely together, including my comrades from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We have made it clear again that every resource is available to local communities affected. We will keep providing whatever immediate practical support and assistance is needed, whether extra pumps and sandbags, military support on the ground, or emergency funds from the severe weather assistance fund for local councils.

The Somerset moors and levels have been some of the areas hardest hit by the weather, with 65 million cubic metres of floodwater on the land. The Rivers Tone and Parrett have been particularly affected by the continuous rainfall, leading to heightened river levels. In total, people in 150 properties across the Somerset levels, where there is a threat of severe flooding, have been advised to leave their homes. A rest centre has been established in Bridgwater. Military personnel have been tasked to work alongside local authorities, and are currently filling sandbags for deployment. Pumping continues, but it is a challenge to keep at the correct pace with the inflow from the latest rainfall, and levels are increasing in some areas. It is likely to take weeks to remove the sheer volume of floodwater, once there is a significant break in the weather.

Across the Thames valley and Surrey, the River Thames is rising and bursting its banks at certain locations. A sandbag programme is in place at key points of vulnerability. A multi-agency gold command has been set up in Croydon to co-ordinate the response locally, and a major incident has been declared. There is a high risk that the Thames, the Severn and the Wye will flood in the middle of next week. Local residents are actively engaged in planning and preparation.

As I told the House on Thursday, I commend the hard work of the emergency services, local authorities, the armed services and the staff of the Environment Agency on the ground. As I have said, there are lessons to be learned, including about its policy on dredging and how its £1.2 billion budget is spent.

I note that the issue of international development funding was touched on over the weekend. Let me say this: just as it is a false choice to cast town versus country, it is also wrong to pit helping the victims of flooding at home against helping those suffering abroad. We can and should do both—to help the plight of those facing the awfulness of flooded homes in Britain, just as we take action to help malnourished children dying from dirty water abroad. But I believe that taxpayers’ money should be well spent, and this applies just as much to quangos as it does to the international aid budget. By spending money wisely, we can better meet our moral obligations, first to Britain and then to the world, but the first and primary obligation of Her Majesty’s Government is the defence of the realm—urban and rural, city and county—and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Maria Eagle]

I thank the Secretary of State for his update.

I have no doubt that those who are being affected by the severe flooding in Somerset and now in the Thames valley welcome the assistance that they are now receiving. It is a considerable relief to those who are living and farming on the Somerset levels that the Army has been made available to assist in the efforts to protect homes, farms and other businesses. That news, combined with the efforts of the fire and rescue services, the police, Environment Agency staff and the many volunteers, shows that there is finally a concerted effort to respond to the floods.

Does the Secretary of State understand people’s anger and frustration that it took so long for the Government to organise that level of response, considering that many of them have been dealing with rising water levels since before Christmas? Will he ensure that it does not take so long to help those in the Thames valley who face flooding today? Why did the Prime Minister remain so disengaged from what was clearly a worsening crisis for so long, in sharp contrast to his predecessor in 2007? What lessons have been learned to ensure that we never again see flooded communities left abandoned for weeks? Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the same level of assistance will be made available to those in Berkshire and Surrey, where severe flood warnings are in place?

Will the Secretary of State provide an update on the work to restore vital rail connectivity to Devon and Cornwall? Have Ministers formally asked Network Rail to present options for a long-term solution to the vulnerability of the line, including the option of re-routing?

On the Environment Agency, does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that

“This is a time for everyone to get on with the jobs that they have… This is not the time to change personnel, this is the time to get on and do everything we can to help people. I back the Environment Agency. I back the work they are doing.”?

If so, why did the Secretary of State go to such lengths yesterday to give the opposite impression as he toured the TV studios? Does he believe that

“the Environment Agency has been remarkably good in giving good, accurate information”?

Those are the words that he used on “The World at One” last Wednesday. Will he explain what changed his mind about the quality of the advice from the Environment Agency in the following 48 hours, other than the fact that he spotted a convenient scapegoat to distract attention from the Government’s failure?

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Prime Minister has been unable to deny that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been forced to write a letter objecting to the attack on one of his Department’s agencies by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government? Does he accept, in hindsight, that it was wrong to launch such a direct attack on the staff of the Environment Agency, and will he take this opportunity to apologise? Does he really believe that the cut of £97 million or 17% in real terms to the annual funding of the Environment Agency, which was required by Ministers, did not impact on the agency’s ability to prevent the flooding that we have seen?

In the House last Thursday, I asked the Secretary of State about the Pitt review, which was commissioned by the last Government after the 2007 floods. He was unable to answer my questions and instead commented that,

“The hon. Lady asked why we have not updated the Pitt review. She will recall that we set up the Flood Forecasting Centre… Perhaps she should spend a little less time in the television studios and more time with Google.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 447.]

Of course, a quick search using Google would have informed the right hon. Gentleman that the Flood Forecasting Centre was set up by the previous Government and opened by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in 2009. I hope that he is better informed today.

Will the Secretary of State explain why the Government stopped producing progress reports on the implementation of the 92 recommendations of the Pitt review in January 2012, despite 46 of them being labelled “on-going”? Is it still the case that none of the recommendations under

“Knowing where and when it will flood”

has been implemented in full? What has happened to the six recommendations on reducing the risk of flooding, the 10 on being rescued and cared for during an emergency and the seven on maintaining power supplies that had not been implemented in full? How many of those have still not been completed by Ministers? Will he explain why the Government axed the Cabinet Committee on improving the country’s ability to deal with flooding and the national resilience forum, both of which were recommended in the Pitt review and established by the last Government? Finally, will the Secretary of State reconsider his refusal to agree to our request that regular progress reports on the implementation of the Pitt review be restarted? Will he commit to presenting the first update to the House by the end of this month?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Lady seems to be obsessed by process. We are much more concerned with making a concerted effort to deal with the problem of flooding.

On readiness, we understand that as the week progresses, there will be increased flooding along the Thames valley. The substantial gravel layers in the valley will make it more difficult to put barriers up. Nevertheless, we have continued to ensure that demountables are available and the enormous help from the military will continue. [Hon. Members: “Answer the question.”] Forgive me, but I thought that I was answering about flooding, not some peculiar problem with regard to procedure.

Today I was in Croydon looking at a water station that ensures there is clean water for 47,000 properties. I looked at the magnificent work of the Environment Agency and of local gold command, which is putting together a team for action to ensure that properties are not flooded and that clean water is available.

On the Environment Agency, it is entirely wrong for the hon. Lady to suggest for one moment that I have issued even the slightest criticism of its marvellous work force. My admiration for the work of the Environment Agency exceeds no one’s, and I believe it is time for us all to start to work together, not to make silly party political points. I am confident that with the help of the Environment Agency, the armed forces and the good work of local councils, that is exactly what we will do.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I believe that we need a period of calm in the House because those who have been flooded, and those who are on the verge of being flooded, look to us to give some leadership. May we look at what is required to be done now in terms of clean water and sanitation to avoid a public health issue for those who have been unable to use their own facilities for a period of time? I welcome what the Prime Minister told the House last week, which was that everything that has happened under that Government, this Government, or any Government, will be looked at anew. We need leadership; the Environment Agency will do whatever its political masters ask it to do, and I think it has done that to the best of its ability. In future we can look at what lessons can be learned from this episode, but we are in the middle of an emergency and must allow the emergency services, including the Environment Agency, to do their work.

[Mr Pickles]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Her knowledge of matters relating to the environment, and particularly flooding because of the peculiar circumstances of her own constituency, is considerable. She is absolutely right, and it is a matter of some priority to ensure that those strategic sites, pumping stations, gas stations and those relating to electricity, are protected and can withstand the rigours of this terrible weather.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I cannot remember a more complacent or inadequate response from a Cabinet Minister to a serious matter in this House. Last year, after last winter’s floods and the travel disruption in the south-west, the Government announced £31 million of new money for improved rail resilience in the south-west. That money has still not materialised. Why should anybody believe any of the new promises the Secretary of State is making when he has failed to deliver on any of them in the past?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to resort to petty insults across the Chamber. There are people right now risking their lives and working on the railways to get them running and get a proper price worked out, and frankly, to play this rather pathetic game of who is to blame—[Interruption.] There will be a time when we will look closely into the causes of the floods and the reaction of the Government, but right now we should get on with the job.

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

On behalf of the people of Somerset may I say a big thank you to all those who have been working in the here and now, dealing with our emergency? I particularly welcome some of the biggest pumps that I have ever seen arriving on the levels over the weekend. There will come a time when we have to look at the emergency response, and also at long-term policies and the advice that we in Somerset have given to successive Governments and agencies over 20 years. Will the Secretary of State look at the funding stream available to local authorities, not just to deal with emergencies but to enable us to maintain these delicate structures far into the future?

[Mr Pickles]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is perhaps good to make the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) cannot be with us today—he is down there dealing with flooding matters. I am sure he would have made similar points.

I felt it was about time somebody apologised to the people of Somerset and I was happy to do so. The Prime Minister has endorsed that apology. It is true that the advice was solidly given, and that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last autumn started some preliminary dredging on the two rivers. That was due to start up again, and it will do so, but in a more enhanced role. That decision was taken by the wisdom of the Secretary of State.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

Today we have had a summary of the short-term, overdue measures that the Government are taking, but what about the long-term implications? What about climate change? Will Cobra, when it meets, look not only at adaptation, but at mitigation? Will the right hon. Gentleman speak to the Chancellor and ensure that we implement the fourth carbon budget review?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course, we take climate change into consideration in all the modelling we do with regard to flooding, but the hon. Lady will accept that the weather patterns we have had have been truly remarkable—nothing like them have been seen since the latter part of the 18th century. I will ensure that her remarks on flooding are passed on to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As the two main A roads from my constituency into Reading have been closed by floods, and as many homes, businesses and gardens have been inundated, sometimes with foul as well as surface water, will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in future, the £1,200 million budget and the near £100 million cash that the Environment Agency started the year with will be available for schemes that I and others recommend which could stop that water in future? Is it not about time that we had the promise of some action from the Environment Agency?

[Mr Pickles]

We need to deal with the short-term effects of the floods given what is likely to happen over the next few weeks, but my right hon. Friend makes a reasonable point—it is not just the size of the Environment Agency budget, but what it does with it and what priorities it has. I am sure that, as the water recedes, there will be a lot of discussion between the Government and the Environment Agency.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

May I suggest to the Secretary of State that, instead of engaging in this arrogant bluster, he answers the questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) from the Opposition Front Bench, and by colleagues who, along with their constituents, have experienced the terrible impacts of the flooding? He ought to apologise instead of continuously passing the buck and saying that it is everybody else’s responsibility but not the Government’s.

[Mr Pickles]

For me, sorry is not the hardest word. I have been criticised for saying sorry to the people of Somerset, and the Prime Minister has said sorry to them. The problem with Labour Members, who talk of hubris and arrogance, is that they are never prepared to admit that they have done anything wrong and go around defending bad practice. The Government are prepared to say that we got it wrong, along with the Environment Agency, with regard to dredging. Had it not been for the campaigning efforts of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, that dredging would not have started.

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

We have had some flooding in Old Amersham and Chalfont St Peter. I praise the fire service and the local authorities, and the Environment Agency and its subcontractors, which have been pumping and saving buildings from flooding by the River Misbourne. Will the Secretary of State look very carefully at the Government’s spending priorities? I believe that the Government should protect our existing transport infrastructure, our towns and our countryside before spending money on new shiny projects that have a disgraceful cost-benefit ratio compared with the 1:8 cost- benefit ratio imposed on the Environment Agency?

[Mr Pickles]

The House has grown to appreciate my right hon. Friend’s doughty defence of her constituents and her dislike of high-speed rail. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has just come back from Marlow, where he examined the state of preparedness, and he reports the fantastic work of local firefighters, working alongside Environment Agency staff and the local police. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be calling him very soon to offer them some moral support.

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

I met Fire Brigade Union representatives, representing firefighters in the south-west, last week, and they report that firefighters are working extremely hard for long hours. I pay tribute to them. But they asked me to make the point that they are being hampered by job cuts—2,000 firefighters over the last 18 months. In addition, although there has been an improvement in equipment, the Government still have not decided to establish a statutory duty on fire authorities to deal with flooding, which would protect investment in equipment in the future.

[Mr Pickles]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would also like to thank the thousands of retained firefighters for working hard on behalf of their local communities. I, too, had the opportunity to speak to firefighters this morning in Croydon. I was remarkably impressed by their dedication, hard work, cheerfulness and adaptability in ensuring that an important water pumping station remains open. We will ensure that firefighters have the best possible equipment to deal with this issue, and we have a strategic reserve of high-volume pumps that are being used extensively throughout the Thames valley and the Somerset levels.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

I would like to use this time to talk about Somerset and the decision that I took there, but I feel I must talk about my constituents, many of whom have had an utterly miserable week and have tough times ahead. Rivers such as the Kennet, which I have known for all my 53 years, have never been dredged and never should be dredged, because it would mean that the water would flow very fast through my constituency and end up in Reading and beyond. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we give false hope to certain communities if the question comes down to the binary decision—to dredge or not to dredge? Getting it right has to be right for that catchment.

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend was a very distinguished environment Minister and he is 100% correct. What works in the Somerset levels might not be appropriate elsewhere. I represent an Essex constituency where several fields are regularly flooded, offering enormous protection to communities along the coast. His point about the Kennet is correct. It is the same problem when pumping out—the need to ensure that the flow is not so fast that it just creates additional flooding.

I do not think that my hon. Friend made a bad decision: I think that I would have made the same decision on the information that was available. He should not ascribe any blame to himself.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am glad that the Secretary of State is in a mood for apologies, because he might like to apologise to the Environment Agency, instead of engaging in a blame game that helps nobody. Sustainable urban drainage systems can play a key role in managing surface water flooding, and the Government’s statement that they will implement schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 for new housing developments is long overdue. Does he agree that people in existing housing should benefit from the cost-effective flood protection provided by sustainable urban drainage schemes, and will he agree to a comprehensive retrofit programme so that they can do so?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Lady’s question is based on a false premise. I have not criticised the Environment Agency, whose staff are doing an excellent job. Merely expressing doubts about one aspect of the agency’s approach in the Somerset levels hardly qualifies as a criticism. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), informs me that the very regulations that she seeks will be laid in April, and I hope that she will volunteer to serve on the relevant Delegated Legislation Committee.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

Cornwall faces a repair bill in the tens of millions of pounds, and it will take months to put right the damage that the storms have caused. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that when claims are made under the Bellwin scheme, they will be expedited as quickly as possible?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the battering that the coast of Cornwall has received. The decision I announced last week on the changes to the Bellwin formula—the first time in 30 years that we have changed the threshold—was made specifically to help Cornwall. I look forward to working with him and the county council to ensure it is compensated for the enormous effort it has put in.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

For every £1 spent on flood defence, there is an £8 return. In the last year of the Labour Government, capital flood defence spending was £371 million. The following year, it was cut by this Government by £87 million, then £115 million, £94 million, £53 million and £35 million. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise to the people of Rhyl, St Asaph, Somerset levels, Dawlish and the Thames valley for the £400 million of costly capital cuts that have totally backfired and will cost this country billions?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Lady—[Laughter.] I would never mistake the hon. Gentleman for a lady. I am so sorry.

We need to look at the straightforward arithmetic. In their last five years the Labour Government spent £2.7 billion. We will be spending £3.1 billion—a lot more money. They had added to it in 2007, so theirs is a boosted figure that is well below ours.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

The misery of the current floods is confined to one region of the country, but the fear of flooding extends to all regions of the country, particularly those that have suffered floods before. My right hon. Friend is right to commend and make the most of the emergency services and the help being given by them. It is, however, undoubtedly true that the best way to deal with flooding is prevention, not cure. For example, it will cost £200 million to £300 million to reinstall the Humber defences. That sounds like a lot of money until the day after a storm surge or major flood, so will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Treasury that, unlike the previous Government, it should not go in for being penny wise and pound foolish?

[Mr Pickles]

I am very familiar with the area to which my right hon. Friend refers, which has a sizeable proportion of holdings below sea level. I know the nature of the river and the historic floods that have taken place around Beverley and across to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) towards York. People have suffered from flooding there in the past and he is right that there is a fear of floods. For years afterwards, people who have been flooded worry every time it rains. It is almost like being burgled: it is not just cleaning up the mess, but the psychological damage. The Government have a responsibility to ensure that residents are kept dry and that we do all we can to alleviate flooding. As my right hon. Friend rightly points out, we were playing, very heavily, catch-up.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State now answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and tell us what assessment he has made of making flood attendance a statutory duty on fire services? If he has not made that assessment, will he do so and then report back to the House?

[Mr Pickles]

That is contained within the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, with the local resilience forum. With enormous respect to the hon. Gentleman, I saw in Croydon what I have seen at all major incidents: a number of services working together very well. The local resilience forum, as I saw today in Croydon, is an exemplar of the way to do things. Making this a statutory duty would not help anything and would not make a single community safer.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend wisely reflected, it is the exceptional weather that is responsible for flooding. Does he agree that, in the end, the forces of unstoppable nature humble us all, as we have faced the wettest January since 1767? As he rightly says, the time for review will come later, but does he agree that one lesson, as outlined wisely by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), is that land management needs to be looked at again in the different areas where floods have taken place?

[Mr Pickles]

As always, my right hon. Friend is correct. We cannot have conventional orthodoxy, and neither should we replace one inflexible orthodoxy with another. We have only to stand close to these rivers, some of which were previously gentle and meandering, or to see that monstrous gap in Brunel’s railway to see the sheer strength of nature. Conventional orthodoxy has to be re-examined, and instead we need bespoke solutions for each area of the country.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

When he got the job, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs removed from his Department’s list of priorities an intention

“to prepare for and manage risk from flood and other environmental emergencies”.

Does the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government agree that this was a terrible error of judgment on the part of his colleague?

[Mr Pickles]

My right hon. Friend replaced an enormous, overbearing bureaucratic system with an emphasis on some key issues, one of which was flood defences. As a consequence, we are spending more on this than the Labour party did in its last five years in office, and no matter how much the Opposition huff and puff, they cannot get away from that basic fact.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State reconsider his comments about overseas aid? When natural disasters take place in other parts of the world, the Government are quick to provide financial assistance to people who suffer, yet it appears that the provision of financial assistance to people in this country has been much slower. At a time when money is tight, the overseas aid budget is the only one not under financial pressure. If people need help and aid, should the aid budget not be there to support them? The Government should not treat people abroad more favourably than people at home.

[Mr Pickles]

The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we will spend and do whatever it takes to ensure that our communities feel safe from flooding. I recognise that my hon. Friend has a distinguished record on this matter, but I do not agree with him—I hope he will forgive me—on this occasion. I think it is possible to deal with overseas problems. I do not think that this great island nation achieved anything by looking inwards.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last year, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in response to a question from me about whether the Thames barrier could be overwhelmed in 100 years or 10 years, said:

“We have begun preliminary investigations of the prospects of long-term flooding.”—[Official Report, 16 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 781.]

Have those preliminary investigations come to any conclusions, and what will be done about it, given the threat to the Thames barrier from climate change and other issues?

[Mr Pickles]

We have deployed the Thames barrier several times in recent weeks, and it has proved remarkably effective at protecting London and some of the islands in the upper Thames. We are confident that it will continue to play a massively important part in the defence of London well beyond the foreseeable future.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The hearts of those of us whose homes, communities and constituencies have not been flooded go out to those of our neighbours whose homes or constituencies have been. In the interests of community solidarity, could the Government not take the lead in setting up a charitable fund to which we and our constituents can contribute to support those who are under-insured, uninsured or in some other difficulty? We could thereby show some solidarity and deal with these personal, human tragedies, rather than using this occasion, as some are, to score points?

[Mr Pickles]

That is exactly the kind of attitude that makes the Chamber a worthwhile place, rising above petty politics. A number of charities are offering help. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), met a number of co-ordinating groups, but I accept the criticism—perhaps I should apologise again—that we have not done enough to signpost them. We will ensure that there are good signposts to these excellent voluntary organisations to help people in distress.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

May I invite the Secretary of State, if he has not already done so, to view Friday’s edition of “Newsnight”, which showed the powerful impact of the flooding in Somerset on individuals? When will he give us a report on the impact of climate change on these events? That is an important determinant of present policy, and we must assess the impact of present policy on the future.

[Mr Pickles]

Sadly, I missed Friday’s “Newsnight”, but I will do my best to pick it up on iPlayer. With regard to climate change, the best advice I have received is that the flooding probably has something to do with climate change. That is not necessarily the case—some of it may be the result of changing patterns—but the effects that we have to deal with are the same. I have no doubt that as part of the process of looking at how we can improve the response of the Government and the Environment Agency, we will consider that and give the hon. Gentleman, who asks a very sensible question, that kind of outlook.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

The Prime Minister has shown decisive leadership in dealing with the here and now. Will my right hon. Friend do the same by calling on BT and other phone companies to ensure that they provide a priority service to reconnect vulnerable elderly people who live alone and whose lives depend on their having a working phone?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. I will make those representations. Looking at the local resilience forum, I have noticed that people have a good idea where those who are vulnerable live, and I saw examples of people working together to make sure that someone who has not been about for a few days is checked up on, but that in no way diminishes my hon. Friend’s point, and I will pass on her remarks to BT and other telephone providers.

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

Support for individuals and families is vital when they are at risk of flooding or they have been flooded. In Hull in 2007 the National Flood Forum charity did excellent work, providing practical assistance both before and after families found themselves flooded out. Is there any additional money for the National Flood Forum to provide such assistance on the huge scale that it faces now?

[Mr Pickles]

We are working closely with the forum. As the hon. Lady suggests, it is doing a terrific job. I do not know about levels of funding, but clearly, if it is taking on additional work for us, we do not want it to be out of pocket.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

What plans do the Government have to provide an assessment of local authorities’ plans for flood prevention in the years to come, particularly asking Hertfordshire what plans it has to stop the River Colne flooding and causing disruption to my constituents?

[Mr Pickles]

Local plans are fed in through the local resilience forum to our teams. One thing that has been clear in dealing with all these emergencies is that there have been pretty well worked out plans. We have found it a lot easier when we are dealing with the worries about the Thames valley that a well established pattern is in place. For example, a number of authorities have what they call flood ambassadors, who will liaise individually with individual houses and offer them support. But I will look specifically at my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Much of the land on which this Parliament is seated is reclaimed land. Indeed, King Canute was the first king to build anything here at all, so would it not be a fine tribute to parliamentary tradition if we were all to unite around building full resilience for the future, rather than permanently bickering every two or three years about what happened last week?

[Mr Pickles]

I knew it would happen at some stage in my parliamentary career, but it came a little sooner than I thought: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The Environment Agency staff, some brand new flood defences and, indeed, those on loan from Bristol city council were a welcome presence in Bradford-on-Avon this weekend. We would like to record our thanks to them. Will the Minister show the same resolve as we have seen in learning the lessons from the floods at Christmas time in taking preventive measures in all the locations that have been affected by floods this week, not just those on the levels?

[Mr Pickles]

Of course, and I am very happy that the beautiful town of Bradford-on-Avon has received those additional flood prevention measures. The number of demountables that we have been able to get out has been something of a record, and I have seen them in operation and how effective they are. Of course it is right that we must learn from the past, not be frightened to apologise and ensure that communities are protected from flood water, even though these have been exceptional events.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Why on this problem, as with all others, do the Government first blame the last Government, then the European Union and then the civil service? Will the Secretary of State tell us on what precise date the Government will take responsibility for their own conduct and cuts? When will he answer the claim by the chairman of the UK Statistics Authority that last week they fiddled the figures?

[Mr Pickles]

It is certainly not those on the Government Benches who are seeking to make political capital from this or engage in some kind of blame game. I am not entirely sure what we got out of this afternoon, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there are a lot of people working extremely hard right now to keep him and his constituents warm and dry.

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

When it comes to advice on flooding from the Environment Agency, is not the real problem that it has too often been ignored by local authorities and the Planning Inspectorate, leading to inappropriate development that makes flooding worse?

[Mr Pickles]

I know that my hon. Friend has had some particular problems. I looked carefully at the figures for building where there was an acute risk of flooding, and I am delighted to tell him that the number of buildings in high-risk areas is at an all-time low. I am also pleased to say that where there have been objections from, say, the Environment Agency, they have been adhered to on 99.3% of occasions.

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

As the former chair of Flood Risk Management Wales, charged with adapting Wales to climate change in respect of flood risk management and flood systems, may I ask the Secretary of State why he has failed to apply for EU solidarity funding, which gave this country £162 million in 2007 and has given another 23 countries £3.5 billion since 2002? Is it because he is against European money because he is prejudiced or is it because he thinks there is a greater priority for investment than flood risk management for devastated communities? They are upset in Somerset—very upset.

[Mr Pickles]

I answered this the last time I appeared in the House. The reason is that there is a threshold of €3.7 billion to get over, and even should we get over the excitement of getting over the threshold to get the EU money, the way the system works means we would have to pay most of it back.

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

My constituency has experienced some river flooding, but it has not been as severe as that in other areas. However, there are particular problems with surface water flooding in the local villages, including the very unpleasant effects of foul water and overflowing sewerage systems. A substantial amount of new housing is proposed in those areas, at a level that local authorities consider to be unsustainable. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in setting housing numbers, local authorities will be able to take into account the adequacy of the infrastructure to support new housing, so that the current problems do not become worse in the future?

[Mr Pickles]

My right hon. Friend has conducted a long campaign in this regard, and he has made a number of very reasonable points. I think that such decisions must be made on the basis of scientific fact. The rising level of groundwater will continue to cause problems in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, my constituency and, indeed, most constituencies until well into June, even if from now on things start to shine.

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

The Environment Agency says that last year it allocated £400,000 for dredging in the Somerset levels, which is the maximum level that Treasury rules permit, but that other Government agencies and partner bodies such as local authorities were not able to “match contribute” towards the £4 million total cost of the scheme. Given the Secretary of State’s leadership role in local government, may I ask when he was made aware of its inability to contribute? May I also ask what representations he made to the Chancellor with the aim of bringing about a change in the Treasury rules?

[Mr Pickles]

That is why I apologised to the people of Somerset, and that is why the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson), insisted on starting the dredging last autumn in order to demonstrate its efficacy. Sadly, however, the turbulent weather arrived before that excellent study could be completed, but we now know that we shall start to dredge, and we shall start to dredge in earnest.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last Government stripped the “hold the line” flood defence systems criteria from 10 to five in 2009? Will he please look into that, in order to prevent more flooding in coastal areas such as my constituency?

[Mr Pickles]

I did note that, but I did not want this to be a partisan exchange, which is not the attitude of the Labour party—I did not want to criticise the Labour party. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has just reminded me that we will look at bespoke patterns of support that will enable us to ameliorate the effects of flooding, and to ensure that people feel safe in their own homes.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Wayne David.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Thank you for the sigh of confidence that you gave before calling me, Mr Speaker.

Everyone in the House would agree that we need a united Government response to this crisis. How does the Secretary of State respond to suggestions that there is a damaging Cabinet rift between him and the Environment Secretary?

[Mr Pickles]

I think that you spoke for the whole House with that sigh, Mr Speaker. Let me make it absolutely clear that the Environment Secretary and I are two peas in a pod. We are two brothers from a different mother. We speak on a regular basis. I am the mere custodian of his wishes, and I look forward fervently to the day when he stands at this Dispatch Box and responds to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Devon contains a longer road network than any other local authority area in the country, and anyone travelling there will see the devastation that the flood waters are causing. Will the Secretary of State recognise that later this week, and give extra assistance to Devon?

[Mr Pickles]

We are offering extra assistance, and we will continue to do so. I think that we must accept, because of the nature of the weather, that we will see exceptional turbulence and disruption to transport in the region. Obviously we need to repair the rail system and make it safe, but we also need to provide alternative ways of getting about, which is why we have laid on extra coaches and the like. Once it stops raining, Devon will be a terrific place to visit, and a terrific place in which to set up a business.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Obviously the immediate priority has got to be to help the people in Somerset and elsewhere who are living in an absolutely desperate situation at the moment, but in the longer term—and following on from the very interesting answer the Secretary of State gave to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames)—how will the Government use the common agricultural policy direct payments budget and the Environment Agency’s maintenance budget to ensure long-term flood protection and to look at things like land management issues?

[Mr Pickles]

I cannot tell the hon. Lady when the consultation finishes, but we are in the middle of the process of doing exactly that. If the hon. Lady wants to make a contribution she could write to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, and that will be taken into consideration in the review and consultation.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

As I keep reminding the House, when the Rivers Aire, Ouse and Trent and the Dutch river and the Humber estuary flooded hundreds of my constituents’ homes in December, due to international events we may not have got the media attention, but at least we avoided becoming a political football. At that time we were very well supported by some very dedicated Environment Agency staff. That said, however, local farmers and the drainage boards are desperate for a change in the way in which we manage river catchments in this country so that we can have more localised solutions. May I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that happens after this flooding is finished?

[Mr Pickles]

I know from my discussions with the Environment Secretary that he has very strong views about this matter, because often local people know and understand individual culverts and watercourses better than other authorities, albeit that that authority might be benign, efficient and full of very good people. The point my hon. Friend highlights must be taken into consideration in the long-term review.

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

Communities in my constituency, particularly along the Penarth coastline, have also been affected by these unprecedented events in recent weeks, albeit not, thankfully, to the extent we have seen elsewhere in Wales or, indeed, in the south-west and the Thames valley. Can the Secretary of State please assure the House that he has, and will continue to have, close co-operation with Welsh Ministers, Welsh local authorities and Natural Resources Wales given that climate change, wind, waves and rain respect no boundaries?

[Mr Pickles]

Absolutely. Of course, our great nations are joined together and what happens on the River Severn has a very big impact. I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance unequivocally.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that in addition to high rainfall, the people of Pagham in my constituency also face problems from the sea, where the growth of the Pagham harbour spit has led to massive erosion of the shingle beach fronting hundreds of properties. Will he ask one of the Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to come to Pagham to see the very real danger this is presenting and to help us secure the funding and the permissions we need to cut a channel through the spit before it leads to the loss of people’s homes?

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend is talking about a very beautiful part of the world. I am sure DEFRA Ministers will come and visit, but I was rather hoping in the not too distant future to come and visit myself, because he raises an important matter. The amount of shingle and the like that has gone is truly breathtaking.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is right to focus on the areas he has discussed, but may I inform him that when I left my constituency this morning three of the four roads into the town of Tewkesbury were cut off, and with further heavy rainfall expected this week we expect that, sadly, a number of houses may be flooded, so will he bear us in mind as well as all the other areas he understandably has to concentrate on?

[Mr Pickles]

I certainly will. As I said to my hon. Friend the last time I spoke at the Dispatch Box, I remember very vividly a visit to his constituency in the summer floods of 2007, I think, and the devastating effect on local businesses and a local public house. He more than anybody understands the effect repeated flooding has on communities and the psychological damage it does. Indeed, the fate of Tewkesbury and neighbouring communities bears heavily on the mind of the Government.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The European Union Commissioner responsible for these matters has made it clear that regional disaster funding is available, with no minimum limit. The Government can define the size of the affected region, and the funding can be made available provided that serious and lasting damage has occurred, that there have been repercussions for economic stability and living conditions in the region and that 50% of people living there are affected. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that Somerset clearly qualifies for such funding, and will he ask his colleagues at DEFRA to apply for it without delay?

[Mr Pickles]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall, has just volunteered to meet the hon. Lady, and I am sure that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We wish to see the Secretary of State’s face, looking at us all fully rather than just at those on his own Benches. He has a habit of gyrating around; let us see the man’s face.

[Mr Pickles]

I apologise. I have always felt that those on my own Benches scrubbed up rather well, and it is uplifting to the spirit to look at them.

As I have said, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has agreed to meet the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) to discuss that matter, and I am sure that those deliberations will be worth while.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

I understand that the Secretary of State will be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) shortly. The Secretary of State will be aware that a bankrupt country would find it much more difficult to defend itself, and it is to this Government’s credit that they managed marginally to increase flood defence funding on coming into office. However, the long-term investment strategy put out by the Environment Agency in 2009 made it clear that we were going to have to almost double our investment in flood defences. Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues make that point forcefully to the Treasury?

[Mr Pickles]

The Treasury is taking an enormous interest in the promises that Ministers are making from the Dispatch Box. Even when representatives of the Treasury are not physically in the room, their presence is always felt.

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

Will the Secretary of State ensure that local Environment Agency workers have the ability to team up with farmers, particularly to work on catchment area solutions such as tree planting? Will he also ensure that the agency takes some of the reported £2.4 million that it has spent on public relations services and puts it into the Rossendale valley to prevent flooding on the River Irwell, the River Darwen and the River Ogden?

[Mr Pickles]

Many hon. Members have made that point about local solutions. We are looking for an integrated approach from local drainage boards, local authorities and the Environment Agency to deal with these problems. It is often the people on the ground who understand the problems better.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

The flooding on the Somerset levels during the past six weeks has destroyed homes, farmland and wildlife habitat, and I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to look into dredging. For 20 years, successive Governments have not done so, and have not dealt with the problem.

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate of dredging, and that was the principal reason why I felt it was appropriate to apologise to the people of Somerset for us ignoring their views. As hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, however, there is no single solution that fits everywhere. Dredging there would be a sensible thing to do, for example, but dredging on the River Kennet would not be sensible. We are therefore looking for bespoke solutions in particular areas.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his robust management of this crisis, and on focusing on what matters—namely, helping those people who are knee-deep in water. Given that the River Parrett has not been dredged since 2005, does he not find the response from those on the Opposition Benches a bit hypocritical?

[Mr Pickles]

I am never surprised by those on the Labour Benches. It is true that I take a robust view on this and sometimes may have erred on the wrong side of robust, but I believe that the things I say in public should be those that I believe in private. I certainly believe that someone whose house is flooded, someone who is worried about their future employment or someone who is worried about their communities wants to know whether the Government are going to get on and deal with the job, or are they going to bicker on pointless procedural points.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

A great number of my constituents in place such as Kings Worthy, Twyford and Winchester have had a truly miserable weekend. I met people with very young children and very elderly people who have been in tears this weekend, and it brings home the real human cost of this, not the petty politics that we are sometimes seeing today. The Secretary of State will understand the sheer helplessness that many of my constituents feel right now. What advice does he have for those who are rightly concerned about the public health threats that will arise if flood waters around their homes persist for a long period?

[Mr Pickles]

We are, of course, not only constantly monitoring the rise of the flood waters, but analysing what is within them, with a view to public health. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being out and about with his constituents, as I am sure everybody here will be. One thing that has become very clear through this is that people in public office, be it Members of Parliament or councillors, have taken a considerable lead, not just in pressing for resources or offering help, but in rolling their sleeves up and getting involved—they should be commended.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

First, I wish to thank all the people in my constituency in the agencies and services who have done so much on prevention and risk-management. In order effectively to sharpen the focus on flood defence perhaps there should be a strategic review, so does the Secretary of State agree that it needs to be reinforced and informed by strong local input?

[Mr Pickles]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that strong local input is immensely important. Although authorities from nearby cities or from London can have a grand strategic view, local people know how the rivers and culverts flow, and are in a position to offer good advice.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Environment Agency is spending £18 million on waterlogging some of the best farmland in the country in my constituency to create a habitat for birds, in a scheme due to start in a couple of months. Will my right hon. Friend examine the resource allocation within the Environment Agency, because it is not just dredging, but wider river maintenance that matters in areas such as the Cambridgeshire fens?

[Mr Pickles]

I am somewhat conflicted on this, as when I am not here I am somewhat of a twitcher and I was very much looking forward to the particular habitat my hon. Friend was talking about. He makes a reasonable point: we now need to look at priorities. We need to consider things not only in terms of where people live, but in terms of ensuring that we are able to produce sustainably the products from agriculture that this nation so desperately needs, and so reduce our imports and dependency on elsewhere. He makes a very good point.

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

The residents of Fleetwood are extremely grateful to the Government for the £60 million-plus they agreed in the summer to provide much-needed new sea defences. But the residents of Thurnham, just along the coast, are being told by the Environment Agency that it will not maintain their sea defences beyond 30 years because of Treasury rules about the valuation of farming land. As part of the Secretary of State’s long-term plan on flooding, can he get the Treasury to re-examine these rules?

[Mr Pickles]

The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall, is going to be very busy, because he would like to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on precisely this issue. I would not be flippant and say that 30 years is a long time and things can change, but this set of storms has been a big wake-up call, not just for government and the Environment Agency, but for the nation as a whole, and we need to make some valuable judgments about where it is appropriate to have defences.

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

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will join me in thanking the volunteers from Halesworth who proactively filled sandbags and put them out along the thoroughfare and outside houses on Friday night. More importantly, although a tragedy is happening in the Thames valley and the south-west, there is a silver lining, as we once again have an opportunity to reflect on the strategy on making space for water and the principles on which the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 was founded. Will he assure me that a review will involve a consideration of the flood, water and habitat directives, and that there will be a recognition that some of the things we have to do are, frankly, bonkers, while common-sense stuff is being left aside?

[Mr Pickles]

I assure my hon. Friend that we will consider all matters relating to flooding and the storms, whether that is the habitat directive or questions of global warming, but I hope she will forgive us that, right now, we need to get on with the process of making communities feel safe.

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

We had a wake-up call in 2000, when the then Prime Minister made promises to MPs in No. 10 Downing street. That happened again in 2007 and it is happening now, so the one question remaining for the House is how we put in place a long-term framework that will mean that, when the political spotlight moves on, flooding does not drop down the list of priorities, as has been the case under successive Governments.

[Mr Pickles]

My hon. Friend makes a firm point, but these storms have been so dramatic, widespread and all-encompassing that the coalition Government’s resolve is that we are determined not to flunk the decisions and make the mistakes of the past.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

The River Mease in my constituency has regularly flooded near Elford, Haunton and Harlaston, partly because the Environment Agency, with other agencies, has refused to allow farmers to clear and manage their watercourses. May I echo others by asking my right hon. Friend to encourage the practitioners of conventional orthodoxy to pay close attention to the concerns and advice of farmers, who are as expert at managing their fields and watercourses as anyone in the EA?

[Mr Pickles]

We have looked to farmers and those in similar professions to help us out during this whole process and their local knowledge has often made the difference. As I have said from the Dispatch Box, my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary believes in that principle passionately, and I believe that good management is operated, if only by acting as an agency for the agency.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Environment Agency were subject to a duty to take account of economic growth such as that proposed in the Deregulation Bill, it would have a welcome opportunity to redefine, refocus and improve its long-term policies and direction?

[Mr Pickles]

I am sure that many in the Environment Agency, which is made up of excellent people, will have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend and may well be taking those wise words into account.

Afghanistan

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

16:44

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Afghanistan. At the end of this year we will have completed our combat mission in Afghanistan, so today is an opportunity not just to pay tribute to the courage and sacrifice of the men and women of our armed forces, but to reflect on why the mission matters and what we have achieved so far and to look forward to the completion of Operation Herrick.

It is well over a decade since September 11, but the events of that day still have the power to shock. The operation that began later in 2001, and continues to this day, has been hard fought and has cost us dear, but the cost of doing nothing and abandoning Afghanistan to the terrorists and insurgents would have been much greater. Thankfully, in today’s Afghanistan al-Qaeda is a shadow of its former self, and we are all safer as a consequence.

Since the start of operations in 2001, 447 members of our armed forces have made the ultimate sacrifice, two of them since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development made the last quarterly statement on Afghanistan to the House on 17 October. I know that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary courage and commitment of those individuals, and of their families, who have to live daily with the loss of their loved ones, and of the many hundreds more who have suffered life-changing injuries. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten. They have protected our national security by helping the Afghans take control of theirs. Working with our international security assistance force partners and the Afghans themselves, they have ensured that Afghanistan is neither a safe haven, nor a launch pad for terrorists who despise everything we stand for and seek to destroy our way of life.

The security situation in Afghanistan today represents very real progress since 2003. When the campaign started, the Afghan national security forces did not exist. Today they are leading operations, protecting the population and taking on the Taliban. For example, as part of the security operation for the Loya Jirga in November, the ANSF established a layered security zone a week before the event. It was a complex, large-scale operation in which all elements of the ANSF co-operated. The results were impressive: 6 tonnes of home-made explosives were interdicted and the event ran safely and smoothly.

A major operation in December spanning Kandahar, Zabul and Daykundi provinces, and involving over 4,000 ANSF personnel, had a similarly successful outcome. More than 250 villages were cleared of insurgents and more than 600 improvised explosive devices were destroyed, with few casualties sustained. The Afghan air force flew resupply missions and evacuated casualties during the operation, with ISAF support limited to advice, intelligence and a small number of air support operations.

The ANSF have almost reached their surge strength target of 352,000 army, police and air force personnel, and between them they are leading 97% of all security operations and carrying out over 90% of their own training. While work continues on professionalising the forces and addressing high attrition levels, their ability to provide security for the Afghan people and maintain the momentum generated by a coalition of 50 nations remains a significant achievement—a source of pride to the Afghan forces themselves and a source of confidence to the civilian population.

As the ANSF have grown in stature, so our role in Afghanistan has evolved from leading combat operations to training, advising and assisting the ANSF. Today, UK forces are primarily engaged in mentoring their Afghan counterparts, providing world-class training and support and undertaking our own draw-down and redeployment activity. The progress of the ANSF is helping to drive the pace of transition, enabling us to meet our target of reducing our military footprint in Afghanistan to 5,200, down by nearly half from this time last year, when there were around 9,000 UK personnel in theatre.

As the nature of the mission has changed and the Afghans have taken the lead responsibility for security across central Helmand’s three districts, we have significantly reduced the number of British bases, from 137 at the height of our engagement to 13 last January and just four plus Camp Bastion today. Our draw-down trajectory will reduce our footprint to one forward observation post and the main operating base at Camp Bastion following the elections. Subsequently, as we enter the final phase of the Herrick campaign, the UK will combine its headquarters at Camp Bastion with those of the US Marine Corps.

Our efforts have not just focused on building the necessary security apparatus. The UK-led provincial reconstruction team, currently operating from Camp Bastion ahead of the completion of its mission next month, has helped deliver real progress in Helmand. Today, 80% of the local population can access health care within 10 km of their home, improved security and infrastructure conditions have meant the reopening of local bazaars and the reinvigoration of the local economy, 260 km of roads have been added to the existing network since 2012, and we have seen the completion of the paving of the strategically important Route 611 in Helmand, a project funded jointly by the UK and the United Arab Emirates.

Ordinary Afghans have seen the quality of their life improve significantly, and we can be proud of the role we have played in making this possible. Nationwide, there has been a 20% rise in household incomes since 2010, and tax revenues increased eightfold between 2004 and 2012. About 6 million children are in school, compared with fewer than 1 million a decade ago under the Taliban. About a third of those are girls, who were previously denied this basic right altogether.

The presidential elections in April will be an important step on Afghanistan’s path to normalisation. The insurgency will almost certainly target these elections in an attempt to derail the process and prevent the Afghan people from casting their votes as is their democratic right. Ultimately, it will be for the ANSF to safeguard the elections, but the UK is committing £20 million to help the Afghan electoral authorities improve their management of the process. Ultimately, a political settlement between the Afghan Government and the Taliban offers the best prospect of a sustainable peace in Afghanistan. As we know from our own experience, securing peace and achieving reconciliation is a long, complex and difficult process. We will continue to support the efforts of the Afghan Government and the High Peace Council to achieve this crucial objective.

The combat operation might be ending, but our commitment to Afghanistan will endure. A small contingent of UK military will remain to provide the coalition lead at the Afghan national army officer academy, supported by mentors from Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and Norway. The academy is currently training over 250 male officer cadets. We expect to train an additional 30 female officers alongside each male intake, with the first female cohort starting in June this year. Together, they will form the next generation of military leaders, and this will be our lasting legacy to the Afghan army.

We want to continue this support, but that requires a NATO status-of-forces agreement which, in turn, requires the Afghans to sign the US-Afghan bilateral security agreement. The BSA was painstakingly negotiated over many months. The Loya Jirga has spoken for the clear majority of Afghans in endorsing it and welcoming international support after 2014. It is now imperative to the future of Afghanistan that this agreement is signed.

Afghanistan today is a very different place from the one we entered in 2001. The Afghans are taking charge of their security and their democracy. It is changing fast, with a growing economy, a young population, and a revolution in access to the outside world through mobile communications and satellite TV. The 2013 Asia Foundation survey of Afghanistan paints a picture of a people who, despite the country’s difficulties, can dare to hope. This is particularly true in Helmand, where 84% of the population believe their country is heading in the right direction. They are a people who are at last seeing an opportunity to move away from the conflicts of the past and towards a brighter future of reconciliation, investment and lasting security.

We have played a key part in making that happen. We should be proud of what our armed forces have achieved over the past 13 years in helping Afghanistan to stand once again on its own two feet. Our focus now is on helping the Afghans to secure the gains of the last decade, using these as a platform for further steady progress in the years to come. I commend this statement to the House.

16:54

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.

Nothing unites this House more than the admiration we have for our armed forces and their service and sacrifice. Nowhere is this more evident than in Afghanistan. As the Defence Secretary said, 447 members of our armed forces have died in operations there since 2001, with many more injured. Their commitment to the United Kingdom and Afghanistan, and to our respective peoples, should never, and will never, be forgotten.

Many British civilians are also working to build peace and progress in Afghanistan, and that will become ever more important as the combat missions wind down. Does the Secretary of State share the shock and sadness at the attack in Kabul just a few weeks ago that cost the lives of 21 people, including two British citizens? Many colleagues from across the political spectrum knew Del Singh, who died in that explosion. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said:

“He dedicated his life to working with people across the world who needed his support.”

Ultimately, he gave his life, too, and we in the Labour party remember him and his work with pride and a sense of determination to continue it.

Will the Defence Secretary outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure the protection of British forces and civilians and give reassurance to them and their families as to what is being done to provide it, both now and after the military draw-down? Does he share the concern that civilian deaths in Afghanistan rose by 14% in 2013, and to what does he attribute that significant rise?

There has been undoubted, but not irreversible, progress in Afghanistan. In terms of finding a political settlement, it is clear that elections scheduled for April are an indication of both the advances and the challenges that remain. Will the Defence Secretary outline what steps are being taken by international forces to ensure that insurgents do not succeed in disrupting the elections and, by extension, the democratic right of the Afghan people? What is his assessment of the risk of increased insurgent activity in the run-up to the Afghanistan national elections this year, particularly in urban areas?

The role of external actors will, as the Defence Secretary knows, also be key. What is the Government’s assessment of the most recent peace talks between the Pakistani Government and the Taliban? How is this impacting on the Taliban’s behaviour in Afghanistan? Has he read reports that they are patrolling jointly with the Afghan national security forces, and what is his assessment of the implications of that?

May I also ask the Secretary of State some specific questions about security and the role of the ANSF and ISAF as the international combat mission ends? Will he provide specific details of what he expects the UK military footprint to be in Afghanistan beyond 2014? As the number of deployed troops falls, the level of danger for ISAF units increases, so will the Defence Secretary tell the House what is being done to maintain vigilance on force protection as UK forces wind down through the course of this year?

Will the Defence Secretary update the House on the progress of the Afghan national army officer academy and the work being done there, particularly on core anti-insurgency capabilities such as air cover, air support, medical evacuation, intelligence gathering and indirect fire support? What percentage of that training is now provided by ANSF forces themselves?

The Defence Secretary will have seen media reports today about the RAF utilising United States air force assets—namely, unmanned aircraft—when UK aircraft are unavailable. Will he confirm that those aircraft always operate on UK tasks, with RAF aircrew in control, using our rules of engagement?

Will the Secretary of State confirm that no soldier currently serving in Afghanistan will face compulsory redundancy, and will he clarify whether serving personnel who apply for redundancy will have their application accepted? What will the total cost of equipment repatriation be to the Ministry of Defence?

It is clear that, as we approach the withdrawal of British and international combat forces, the more necessary it will be for us to adopt a comprehensive approach to engagement with and in Afghanistan. The shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Secretary of State for International Development—my right hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) and for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) respectively—and I work together closely on that and I know the Defence Secretary does, too. What action is he taking to ensure proper treatment and, if necessary, safe haven for those who have supported our forces as interpreters over the past years?

Today the US Government announced three new development initiatives worth almost $300 million. What assessment have the Government made of how UK aid will work alongside those plans?

One area of shared concern is that of the rights of women and girls after the international forces depart. Will the Secretary of State update us on what discussions the Government are having with counterparts in Afghanistan on the issues? Does he share our deep concern—I am sure he does—about the new law that will, in effect, silence female victims of domestic violence and forced or child marriage?

There can be no room for complacency about such complicated and continuing issues. There is still much work to be done before the end of our combat mission, with British troops remaining in danger, and there will be a great deal of work, albeit of a different kind, to do afterwards. Our commitment is to build peace, progress and the lasting stability that our armed services have fought so bravely to secure.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support on this matter, on which—to the great credit of this Parliament—there has been and remains a bipartisan approach.

I of course share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments on the Kabul attack, the purpose of which is to undermine the international support on which Afghanistan will depend for many years to come if it is to continue to make progress. I am sure that all Government Members will wish to be associated with his expression of sympathy to the families and friends of the British victims of the attack.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the future security of British civilians in Kabul. Obviously, we are monitoring the situation closely, and we will make appropriate arrangements to support British civilians in Kabul, particularly those on Crown service. He would not expect me to go into the detail of those arrangements at the Dispatch Box, but there should be no doubt in anybody’s mind that Kabul will remain a dangerous place for foreigners for the foreseeable future. We will rely primarily on the ANSF to maintain security in that city.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the recent rise in the civilian death rate. That is of course deeply regrettable, but I am sure that he would want to focus attention on the fact that more than 74% of all civilian deaths are directly attributable to the insurgency. In fact, the number of civilian deaths attributable to ISAF action has gone down over time, and the number of those attributable to ISAF air strikes—they were once the cause of considerable concern—has gone down by 80%. That is something that we will continue to pursue.

The hon. Gentleman asked about election security and what action ISAF will take. Clearly, ISAF will support the ANSF in every way it can, particularly in the provision of intelligence and surveillance capabilities, but the ANSF must take the lead. The message around this election is that the Afghans have taken lead responsibility for their security. The ANSF is capable, and it is very determined to be seen to lead this operation and to deliver the security that Afghanistan’s fledgling democracy requires.

There will be threats to the elections. We have already seen a concerted campaign of targeted assassinations. I am afraid that the realists among us expect that to continue and probably to accelerate as we move towards the election date. It is greatly to the credit of the leaders of Afghanistan’s democracy that it has not yet in any way undermined their enthusiasm for the democratic process.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the talks going on between the Pakistan Government and the Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan in relation to the situation in North Waziristan. We of course hope that there is the possibility of a solution between the two sides, but it remains the case that the Pakistan Government have to be willing to take firm action against the TTP in North Waziristan if a settlement is not possible.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the reports of joint patrolling in Sangin. It is very difficult to get to the bottom of these reports, but I have personally been able to establish at the very highest levels that there is no mandate from the higher levels of the Afghan system for any such activity. Indeed, action has been taken to ensure that nothing that could be interpreted as joint patrolling or any kind of compromise with the insurgency can happen again.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the UK footprint. As he knows, our position is that we expect to have a continuing footprint at the Afghan national army officer academy at Qargha, just outside Kabul. That footprint will be within a much larger complex, which will have a US and ANSF-controlled perimeter. I cannot give him the precise number of UK personnel at the moment, but it will probably be between 150 and 250, depending on our precise assessment of the force protection needs at the time. He asked what percentage of training at the ANAOA is being done by Afghans. I cannot give a precise figure. If I can get a useful figure, I will write to him. It uses a “train the trainer” model, so we expect the Afghans increasingly to take responsibility for direct training.

The hon. Gentleman asked about media reports on remotely piloted air systems and about US aircraft backfilling for the unavailability of UK remotely piloted aircraft. We operate a combined fleet with the US and there is ISAF tasking. UK and US aircraft therefore fly ISAF mission tasks and they may be piloted by UK or US pilots. However, UK pilots always operate to UK rules of engagement. The rules of engagement for remotely piloted aircraft are exactly the same as those for our Tornado aircraft and those that will apply to our Apache rotary-wing aircraft when they are in action.

The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance—with tongue in cheek, I hope—that any volunteers for redundancy who are currently serving in Afghanistan will be accepted. I cannot give him that assurance. They will certainly be considered. The criteria for voluntary redundancy relate to the future shape of the force and whether the skills that individuals hold are needed for its sustainment.

The repatriation of equipment is slightly ahead of plan. We have repatriated about half the equipment that we have to repatriate. Originally, we estimated that the cost would be up to £300 million. We are confident that the repatriation will be completed within that cost envelope.

The hon. Gentleman asked about locally employed civilians. He will know that we have two offers for locally employed civilians. The first is a redundancy scheme for eligible individuals who have served on the front line as interpreters, which allows them to accept a financial and resettlement package in Afghanistan or to come to the UK. So far, most of those who are eligible have opted to come to the UK. The second is an intimidation package for those who are not eligible for resettlement in the UK under the redundancy scheme, but who have experienced intimidation in Afghanistan.

Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about our future aid budget. We are committed to providing £170 million per annum of ongoing Department for International Development support to Afghanistan until at least 2017. Some of that aid is targeted at projects that seek to protect the legacy of our achievement in the crucial area of the rights of women and girls. The Afghans made specific commitments on that area in Tokyo, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development addressed President Karzai on the subject personally during her most recent visit to Kabul.

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

May I welcome and agree with what the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State have said on this important subject? Does my right hon. Friend agree that one cannot sensibly discuss Afghanistan without also discussing Pakistan? That region is and will continue to be of supreme importance to this country. Does he agree that as we draw down in Afghanistan, we should consider increasing our attention on and assistance to Pakistan in order to preserve that importance?

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Pakistan is crucial to the security of the United Kingdom. A significant proportion of the potential terrorist threats to the United Kingdom comes from the tribal areas of Pakistan, and we target a commensurate proportion of our aid effort into Pakistan. That includes a programme of military support for counter-IED training, which is greatly appreciated by the Pakistanis because it addresses a very real threat to their civilian population.

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

Further to the question from the Chairman of the Defence Committee, much of the logistical support and leadership of the Afghan insurgency remains across the border in Pakistan. Does the Secretary of State agree that the opportunity for a real settlement would be vastly improved if the Pakistanis were prepared to engage properly and take effective action against those individuals? Has he seen positive signs of an increased preparedness to do so that he can report to the House?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that that area on the border is difficult to access. The border is very porous: action on one side tends to drive people across to safe havens on the other side, and the reverse happens when action starts on the other side of the border. It needs collaboration. There has been modest progress at tactical operational level on Afghanistan/Pakistan co-operation along the border, and we have seen a considerable de-escalation of tension along the border since the events of November 2012, which led to a serious stand-off and the closure of the reverse lines of supply through Pakistan. This will be a long haul, but I believe that the relatively new Government in Pakistan are committed to working with regional partners to secure stability in Afghanistan, and that they have realised that stability in Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s long-term interest.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

We can all be extremely proud of the achievements not only of Her Majesty’s armed forces but of the provisional reconstruction team that my right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement. Does he agree that the future for Afghanistan after we leave still presents immense challenges? At the risk of being rather boring about this, may I press my right hon. Friend that, subject to an agreement on the status of forces after the end of this year, we should retain a sizeable interest in the country? If it all goes pear-shaped, very soon there will be 447 grieving families who say, “What did our sons die for in vain?” We have soldiers, sailors and airmen present, and it is better that they should be doing that than kicking their heels in Aldershot.

[Mr Hammond]

I can assure my hon. Friend that those people did not die in vain. They have delivered stability in Afghanistan that it could only have dreamed of a decade ago; they have made substantial progress in delivering the infrastructure of a functioning state; and they have protected us from terrorist attacks that could otherwise have originated from that territory. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that the footprint post-2014 will be, as I have set out, based around the Afghan national officer academy, but even that will be at risk if we do not get the bilateral security agreement signed and a NATO status of forces agreement in place.

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

German Foreign Minister Steinmeier has said that Germany will not agree to Bundeswehr training missions unless that agreement is signed. Have we been as explicit, saying that unless it is signed ASAP we will simply not enter into further agreements?

[Mr Hammond]

I think Mr Steinmeier was merely articulating a view that is shared by all NATO partners. We cannot operate without a status of forces agreement that will protect our own forces from exposure to Afghan judicial processes. We must be able to deal with forces’ discipline issues ourselves, and to assure any forces we put into theatre that they will not be subject to local jurisdiction; without that, we will not be able to operate. I think the Afghans understand clearly that no bilateral security agreement and no status of forces agreement means that there will be no foreign forces in Afghanistan.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

May I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the extraordinary achievements of all three services, of all ranks and of all arms, for their exceptional services in Afghanistan? Will he also congratulate the Ministry of Defence and all those responsible for the extraordinary logistical operation of bringing back so much kit, which will be useful to us in the future? Would he consider doing more at the Ministry of Defence to make clearer to the population at large the extent of the British achievement in Afghanistan, and the fact that we are leaving in good order but will take steps to ensure the protection of those troops that are left there? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) said, we will do our best to protect our heritage and legacy there.

[Mr Hammond]

As I have made clear, we are very committed to protecting that heritage, but we can do so only with the co-operation of the Afghans in the form of a status of forces agreement, which will allow us to have a continuing presence and to make the continued financial contribution we have agreed to support the Afghan state in future.

I am happy to join my right hon. Friend in his tribute to all three services, and in his welcome tribute to those who labour behind the scenes in the incredibly complex logistics operation. Many Members of the House will, in one guise or another, have had the opportunity to see the scale of the operation at Camp Bastion. Anyone who has seen it will understand how integral the ability to take tens of thousands of tonnes of matériel that far away and sustain it in a war theatre is to our military capability.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

It is worrying that, as the Secretary of State has made clear, senior commanders did not have the situation under control in Sangin to such an extent that joint patrols took place with the Taliban. Are the Taliban and/or the insurgency network pushing out or defeating the Afghan security forces in any other parts of Afghanistan?

[Mr Hammond]

I should make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I am not sure whether it has been established that there was anything that could be called a joint patrol. The reality in Afghanistan is that some areas are not controlled by the Government and are under the control of the Taliban. Where there is such an interface, either it can be dynamic, with continuous fighting, or there can be some kind of understanding that allows it to be stable and for the boundary to be recognised. My interaction with senior Afghan commanders and political leaders reassures me that they do not recognise any arrangements such as those he describes, and that they have taken steps to ensure that nothing that could be misinterpreted as a joint arrangement on the ground will happen in future.

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

Does the Secretary of State see any connection between the reluctance of the Afghan Government to sign the very important future security agreement and the sort of negotiations that they may be having with the Taliban?

[Mr Hammond]

It is possible that the considerations in play in the Afghan President’s calculations on the bilateral security agreement involve negotiations that may or may not be happening, and that may or may not be visible to us, with elements of the insurgency. It is also possible that the situation is influenced by the impending presidential election and the politics of that.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has said that 30 women are being trained at the academy along with the group of men. I am not sure what the time scale is for the training, but I recall that there was a target to train 150 women a year. Was that target too ambitious or is it still in place?

[Mr Hammond]

There are 30 women per training cohort. I will need to check whether there are five cohorts in a year—if there are, the target is still in place. I will do so and write to the hon. Lady.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

Last Saturday, I went to the squadron of the Leicestershire and Derbyshire Yeomanry, part of the Royal Yeomanry based in my constituency in South Wigston, where I presented campaign medals to three members of the reserve forces, two of whom had recently come back from Afghanistan where they had been serving in active roles. One of them, Trooper Edwards, was a driver of a Warthog vehicle stationed with the Royal Tank Regiment. The Secretary of State mentioned repatriated equipment. Will some of it be repatriated for use by the reserve forces, who have demonstrated their ability to take their role alongside the regular forces, but who need the equipment to train so that they can be more effectively deployed with it?

[Mr Hammond]

There are two separate points here. First, the equipment that was bought for Afghanistan through urgent operational requirements, especially armoured vehicles, represents a significant investment and we are repatriating it into core. All armoured vehicles except those that are damaged beyond economic repair will be returned to the UK and brought back into the core equipment fleet.

On the question of reserves, we have made a commitment that the reserves will increasingly in the future train on and use the same equipment as the regular forces. We have already started to deliver on that commitment by rolling out new deliveries of equipment to reserve units across the country. The pool of equipment will be joint, for the use of the integrated force—regulars and reserves.

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

Our fundamental mission in Afghanistan was of course to improve the security of the British people, rather than any improvement in the living conditions of Afghans. Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that the two go hand in hand? If we leave behind a more progressive country, it is more likely to remain an enduring ally of the United Kingdom in the decades ahead. Will he agree to look again at our principles for future intervention to ensure that making countries more progressive and upholding our values remain a fundamental part of what we are about as a country?

[Mr Hammond]

Let me answer that question this way: it is clear that our immediate mission was to deny Afghanistan to terrorists who would have used it as a base to strike at us and our allies and interests. But in the long term, it was never going to be a credible proposition that foreign forces could hold this territory. We had to build a stable and capable state in Afghanistan with a security force of its own that could do that job. My judgment is that a country that has a basic rule of law and recognises human rights will be a more stable and sustainable place in the future. A country that has education, health care and infrastructure will engage the loyalty of its citizens in a way that Afghan Governments have not always done in the past. We have to be very careful about the tone of this debate, however. It is not about exporting our perfect model of society and imposing it on others who in many fundamental respects will not accept some of the tenets that we regard as basic to our everyday existence.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome and support the Secretary of State’s statement, especially his praise for our armed forces. As well the need to bring them safely home, he has touched on the fact that we have to return or dispose of considerable amounts of military matériel. Will he comment—either today or in a fuller statement in due course—on the matériel that we will dispose of and exactly where it will go?

[Mr Hammond]

I can give my hon. Friend some indication. As at the end of January, we had redeployed 1,694 vehicles and other major equipment, and 2,374 20-foot equivalent containers of matériel. We have also destroyed or disposed of some equipment in theatre, but I can assure him that no military equipment is disposed of in any way that would allow anything of military use to fall into the hands of the enemy. I can assure the House from my personal experience that this obligation is taken very seriously. I saw a container full of dead Duracell batteries and I was told that they had to be brought back to the UK because they might be of use to the enemy if they were left in theatre. The military are not taking any chances.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has advised the House that our remotely piloted air systems capability is utilised across ISAF, not just by our own RAF forces. Is he also able to assure the House that at no point have other members of ISAF been able to use any of our RPAS for intelligence gathering or for armed attacks in Pakistan?

[Mr Hammond]

Our RPAS vehicles in our fleet operate only in Afghanistan, so I am able to reassure the hon. Lady on that point.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

In welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement and commending the professionalism and courage of our armed forces, may I nevertheless urge him, when we look back on lessons learned for future conflicts, to continue to ask the hard questions not on the intervention in 2002 after 9/11, but on the decision to move south into Helmand in 2006, both per se and on the question mark over the split between the different Government agencies, which took such a very long time to heal, and the split command structure in Afghanistan at the time?

[Mr Hammond]

I have no doubt that in the fullness of time all these things will be examined in great detail. I know that my hon. Friend would not want his comments to detract in any way from the fantastic job that British forces have done in three of the most kinetic and dangerous districts in the whole of Afghanistan. In fact, the three districts of central Helmand are Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in terms of enemy activity. The job we took on was very challenging and the work done by our armed forces has been very successful in addressing that challenge.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Last month, three Afghan interpreters commenced legal proceedings against the Government, highlighting the difference between their treatment and the treatment of former Iraqi interpreters. Since June last year, 116 claims have been made relating to threats made against those former Afghan interpreters. Why are we treating the Afghan interpreters differently from the Iraqi interpreters? Both supported our Government’s troops and put their lives at risk.

[Mr Hammond]

First, just to put the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks in context, all those claims, I think, have been brought by a single law firm that has not stumbled on these claimants by accident. The reason we are treating them differently is that the circumstances are different. After careful consideration of the differences between the situation in Afghanistan and the situation that existed in Iraq, we took the decision to make the redundancy package proposal that we have made. We also have in place in Afghanistan an intimidation policy that is able to deal with any cases of intimidation that fall outside the scope of the redundancy package. We did not have such a policy in place in Iraq.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

May I, too, welcome the statement, which shows that Afghanistan is increasingly taking control and responsibility for its own affairs? May I also offer a tribute to our armed forces? I am a frequent visitor to Afghanistan and it was positive to see how the capability of the Afghan armed forces has improved. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while there are many challenges in the areas of economic development and governance, NATO should be commended for its specific role in improving security and in training the local Afghan forces in a very difficult environment?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. NATO should be very proud of what has been an incredibly complex operation integrated across the 50 partner nations. On the capability of the ANSF, I think it is fair to say that at every stage of the process our UK commanders have been pleased and surprised at the rate and quality of progress made by the Afghan forces. They have become a credible and sustainable military force in far quicker time than we ever really expected would be possible.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State knows, the Hazaras are an ethnically distinct, predominantly Shi’a minority in Afghanistan. They suffered terribly under the Taliban, but also under previous Governments. At a meeting in this House in January of the Hazara all-party group, a lot of concerns were expressed about the vulnerability of this minority, come the withdrawal. Will he say what specific discussions have taken place on the vulnerability and protection of minority groups such as the Hazaras as the year progresses?

[Mr Hammond]

The Afghan constitution makes it clear that all ethnic minorities are protected and enjoy the same rights. Furthermore, some of the key players in Afghan society and political circles are Hazara. Of course, however, we should be mindful of the risks to ethnic minorities and the risk of ethnic fragmentation, which, after all, is at the root of many of Afghanistan’s historical problems. The right hon. Gentleman’s point is, therefore, well made, and it is very much on the radar screen.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

In echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), I think we should reflect on the fact that two and a half times as many British servicemen have died in Afghanistan as died in Iraq and that the proportion of injuries among us and the Americans is about five times that suffered in Iraq. It is, therefore, inconceivable that there should not be a full and proper inquiry into the entire campaign. Now that the end date for active UK operations is well in sight, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend took back to the Prime Minister the need to establish such an inquiry.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend has made his position clear. There are different views about the wisdom of embarking on these large-scale inquiries, but I certainly undertake to pass his suggestion to the Prime Minister.

While I am on my feet, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I take the opportunity to confirm that we expect 150 female cadets to be trained per year? The course is indeed 10 weeks, so there will be five cohorts of 30 in each year.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Heroin production is at a record high, the number of civilian deaths is at a record high, the Taliban control large parts of the country and the hard-won women’s rights are being degraded by the ingrate Karzai, who described our brave soldiers and their work as a failure, especially in Helmand, where most of them died. Can this be described as “mission accomplished”?

[Mr Hammond]

And the hon. Gentleman forgot to say that the glass was half empty. No one has ever suggested that Afghanistan is emerging as a perfect society. This is a war-torn country with deep ethnic and tribal divisions and a young and fragile Government seeking to hold it together, and we are trying to assist them in maintaining something better than what has been there in the past—decades of internecine warfare resulting in desperate standards of living, many tens of thousands of people dead and many more displaced.

On the hon. Gentleman’s specific points, there has been an uptick in civilian deaths, but given the historical levels of civilian deaths, I believe we are making progress. I am disappointed by the recent opium harvest figures—he is right that we are not making as much progress there as we would like—but on women’s rights I think he is being unduly negative. Rights do not just operate around statutes and laws; they are about societal norms, and the norms in Afghan society are changing. The genie of women’s rights is out of the bottle, as even the Taliban now acknowledge in recognising the rights of girls to an education. That is progress, albeit slow and painful progress.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the work of 3 Mercian, the Staffords, as it carries out its final operational tour? It has given unstinting and costly service over many years of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Mr Hammond]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in praising the unstinting work that 3 Mercian has done. I can remember, long before I came into this job, listening to those reports on our televisions every night and thinking that the Mercian Regiment seemed to suffer a disproportionate number of casualties. It has given a great deal to this campaign, and the nation will remain profoundly grateful to it.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State referred to the porous nature of the border with Pakistan. Is there any prospect that a newly elected leadership in Afghanistan—perhaps disputedly elected, as last time—will be any more likely to recognise the Durand line as an international border, or will we have this continuing problem of the open, free movement of terrorists from either side to the other?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not claim to be an expert on the complexities of Afghan politics, but it would probably be suicidal for any elected Afghan politician to recognise the Durand line, which the Afghan people do not recognise as a fair definition of the boundary of their country. Having said that, it is not disputes over the Durand line that make the border porous; it is the nature of the terrain, which is just about the most inhospitable it is possible to imagine. Flying over it, the only thought in one’s mind is: “How on earth could anybody possibly live, let alone move around, in this kind of territory?”, but those who wish to, manage to.

[Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State has wisely and correctly made reference to the national officer academy. Can he confirm that places will be offered to officers and officer cadets of neighbouring allied countries?

[Mr Hammond]

No; the purpose of the Afghan national army officer academy is to train officers for the Afghan national army. We have a number of nations contributing trainers and mentors to that process, but as far as I am aware, there are no plans at the moment to offer cadet places to the armies of any other country.

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

Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), may I press the Secretary of State on what he is doing to ensure that the position of women and girls does not deteriorate as ISAF leaves? We are very concerned about the new law and its implications for preventing family members from prosecuting other family members in cases of domestic violence.

[Mr Hammond]

I hear the hon. Lady’s concern. All I can do is repeat to her that my right hon. Friend the International Development Secretary, who visited Afghanistan recently, met President Karzai and presented to him her concerns about this and other matters, and the implications of pursuing that route for Afghanistan’s future support from the international community, upon which that country will be dependent. There was a clear bargain set out at Tokyo. Afghanistan has agreed to address issues around human rights, the rights of women and the ingrained nature of corruption in Afghan society, and the international community in exchange has offered to provide ongoing financial support. The Afghan Government have to deliver on their side of the bargain.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. In relation to the peace talks in Pakistan between the Government of Pakistan and the Taliban, he will know that the previous talks were scuppered on 2 November, when Mr Mehsud was taken out by a United States drone strike, and on 30 May 2013, when Mr Waliur Rehman, a Taliban leader, was also taken out by a United States drone strike. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that discussions will be had with our international allies about not using drone strikes in Pakistan, as they may scupper talks again and undermine the authority of the Government of Pakistan and our relationship with that country when we need to be strengthening it?

[Mr Hammond]

I think our allies are aware of the importance of at least exploring the possibility of some kind of negotiated settlement with the Pakistan Taliban in North Waziristan. I observe that there appears to be a space being allowed for these negotiations to progress, but that space will not remain open for ever, and I hope the parties will do everything in their power to reach a conclusion rapidly.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

I welcome the statement. The Secretary of State was right to refer to the importance of the forthcoming presidential election in Afghanistan, and the importance of the Afghan security forces’ taking responsibility for the security arrangements. Can he say a little more about the £20 million of UK money that he mentioned, and about what it will be used for as part of that security operation?

[Mr Hammond]

It is not directly designed to support the security operation; it is designed to support the good administration of the elections. We have also allocated funds to increasing the participation of female candidates, and providing the training and capacity building that will enable more of them to take part in the election.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Given the unfortunate gap between our hopes and aspirations and the time taken to achieve our goals in Afghanistan, can my right hon. Friend tell us why he is so sure that Afghan forces possess enough resilience to handle the expected intensification of violence at the end of 2014? In what circumstances would the supporting role of British troops intensify after that date to ensure that this country’s sacrifices were not wasted?

[Mr Hammond]

As the House would expect, I make my judgments about military matters—in particular, the resilience and capability or otherwise of any particular forces—on the basis of military advice, and that is the military advice that I am receiving. However, I am not sure that my hon. Friend is necessarily right in seeing nothing but a reinforcement of the insurgency after the end of 2014. On the one hand, ISAF will not be present in the same numbers or in the same role, but on the other hand, there is no doubt in my mind that the presence of foreign forces has been one of the great recruiting sergeants of the insurgency, and that the removal of foreign forces changes the dynamics. There are definitely Afghans who would have signed up to the insurgency to fight foreign soldiers but do not wish to join up and kill their Afghan brothers in the ANSF.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Finally, I call the very patient Mr Stephen Mosley.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The smooth transition of power after the election is crucial to the long-term future of the country. Is my right hon. Friend convinced that all the main candidates broadly support the policy directions followed by President Karzai, and, in principle at least, support the bilateral security agreement?

[Mr Hammond]

President Karzai is not currently indicating a willingness to sign the agreement. I think our assessment is that all the candidates appear to support it, and that all of them—as would be expected in a democratic election—are committed to the constitutional settlement in Afghanistan.

Points of Order

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

17:43

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My constituent Margaret McNiffe has been denied her disability living allowance because her claim was considered 24 hours late, although the Department for Work and Pensions had sent the paperwork to the wrong address. She is now losing the car on which she relies to get to work, and is forced to use taxis, at great expense, in order to get around. Do you know whether the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has any plans to come to the House to announce a review of the callous and unfair way in which his Department is doing business, causing much distress to people such as my constituent, and costing the country more than it should? Alternatively, can you offer me some advice on how I can right this injustice?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I think the hon. Gentleman and the House are well aware that that is not a point of order to be dealt with by the Chair at this time. However, I am sure that the House has every sympathy for the lady in question. I have not at this point received an intimation that any Secretary of State plans to come to the House to deal with the matter, but there are many occasions on which such matters are dealt with by Ministers, and I am certain that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman will be noted by those who ought to note it. He may wish to seek advice on pursuing the case via parliamentary questions or, perhaps, an Adjournment debate.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the earlier urgent question on floods I mentioned the River Kennet. As I have interests that adjoin the River Kennet, I should have referred hon. Members to my entry in the register. I apologise for not having done so, and I am advised that this is a good opportunity to make up for my earlier omission.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman has indeed now made that point and it is now noted.

Children and Families Bill (Programme No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83(A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Children and Families Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 25 February 2013 in the last Session of Parliament (Children and Families Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 15 April 2013 in that Session (Children and Families Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion four hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

(2) The proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table.

(3) The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Children and Families Bill

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in a large number of Lords amendments, which are listed in the notes on the Order Paper. If the House agrees to any of them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

New Clause

Protection of Children’s Health: Offence of Smoking in a Private Vehicle

17:46

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 125.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 121 to 123.

Lords amendment 124 and amendments (a), (b) and (c) thereto.

Lords amendment 150.

[Jane Ellison]

I am very pleased to speak to this package of Government amendments aimed at protecting young people from tobacco and nicotine addiction. I will also speak to the amendment on smoking in cars carrying children, which was agreed in another place.

I am sure that I need not remind hon. Members that tobacco use is a leading preventable cause of death, accounting for nearly 80,000 premature deaths per year in England alone and being a contributory factor in many other aspects of poor health. Taking action to prevent young people from taking up smoking in the first place is vital in our efforts to reduce rates of smoking.

When I first became the Minister responsible for public health I was made very aware of just how critical the teenage years are in smoking addiction, and that came up repeatedly in a Backbench Business Committee debate at the time. Almost two-thirds of smokers take up smoking regularly before they are 18—that is, they were addicted before becoming adults. That is a shocking reality, which many hon. Members have spoken about in this Chamber.

Stopping smoking can be extremely difficult because the addiction is so powerful. While two-thirds of smokers say that they want to quit, only a small fraction succeed in doing so. That is why we must stop young people taking up smoking in the first place. We want to see our young people enter an adulthood that is healthy and long-lived, but half of all long-term smokers will die from a smoking-related disease.

The amendments we have introduced seek to do the following: introduce regulation-making powers to enable the Government to bring in standardised tobacco packaging, if such a decision is made; introduce regulation-making powers to prohibit the sale of nicotine products to people under the age of 18; and to create a new offence of the proxy purchasing of tobacco. Also returning to this House from another place is an amendment which would provide the Government with regulation-making powers on smoking in cars carrying children, which is for hon. Members to consider.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Is she saying that the Government are agreeing with the Lords amendment to ban smoking in vehicles because that is what she wants to see achieved, or is she saying that the Government are agreeing with the Lords amendment because it is a passive one and even if passed by this House she intends to ignore it?

[Jane Ellison]

Actually it is neither of those two things. Technical amendments are needed to the wording of what was passed in another place and the Government’s view was that the House needed the chance to consider something that was legally workable. I will cover that in a bit more detail later.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the Minister not agree that this is actually premature and that we should await the outcome of the Sir Cyril Chantler review? That is an independent review and we should not try to shape his opinion in advance of it. In a famous statement in this House on 12 July last year—a date I will always remember—it was made clear that this was about gathering evidence. Surely we should await the gathering of evidence before we put legislation in place that will allow the implementation of something for which there may not be sufficient evidence.

[Jane Ellison]

I will discuss that point in more detail in a moment. We have had these discussions before. The Government are seeking regulation-making powers, but we will await the outcome of the independent Chantler review. Ministers will take all other factors into consideration at that time before making a decision.

I want to set out the key elements of the Government amendments. Let me start with standardised tobacco packaging. As I told the House on 28 November last year, we have asked Sir Cyril Chantler for an independent view of the public health evidence on standardised packaging of tobacco products. Sir Cyril’s report is due in March. During debates in the House, many hon. Members have told me that the evidence base for standardised packaging continues to grow. 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 do so, including public health benefit.

We have therefore introduced provisions that would give Ministers the power to make regulations to standardise the packaging of tobacco products, should a decision be taken by the Government to do so. Ministers would be able to regulate internal and external packaging and any other associated materials included with a tobacco product, including the cellophane or other outer wrapper of a cigarette pack. The powers will extend to other forms of tobacco such as hand-rolling tobacco.

[Ian Paisley]

The Minister has touched on two important points. One involves the packaging rights of companies. Is there anything in the legislation that would enable compensation to be granted to those companies if the Government chose to remove their trademarks and branding rights? I understand that, under European law, billions of pounds of compensation could be payable in those circumstances. Secondly, will the Minister clarify whether the Chantler review—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but I am sure that he will wish to be brief, as many people wish to speak in the debate.

[Ian Paisley]

I apologise for the longevity of my intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, but these important issues affect many jobs in my constituency. My second point involves the illicit trade in tobacco products. Will the Minister tell us whether that will be covered by the Chantler review?

[Jane Ellison]

As I said in my earlier statement to the House, the Chantler review is looking specifically at the public health aspects of these matters. Sir Cyril is perfectly free to look at whatever he wants, but those are his terms of reference. Other issues will be considered in the round when Ministers come to make their decisions. Those issues were of course fully explored during the consultation that took place before the review.

The amendment sets out the elements of 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.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know that one of the main scourges for young people is alcohol. Why are the Government not proposing standardised packaging for alcohol?

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but that is probably a debate for another time.

The Government would not necessarily use all the powers I have just described, and if we proceed, we will need to decide which aspects would be included in any regulations. However, it is prudent to take a comprehensive approach now, so that we are prepared for the future.

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

My hon. Friend will know that every packet of cigarettes carries the bold message “Smoking kills”. However, that does not influence the purchasing habits of smokers. There is also no evidence yet that the appearance of a cigarette packet will deter anyone from smoking.

[Jane Ellison]

This is a matter for the Chantler review; it is one of the things we have asked Sir Cyril to look at. I am not going to second guess the outcome of his review.

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

Will the Minister clarify a point that she has just made? I understood, perhaps wrongly, that she said that the Government were getting these powers into their armoury in case they needed to be used. Are the Government putting these measures into legislation for potential future use, rather than because there is evidence of a need for them now?

[Jane Ellison]

This question came up in the other place, and we have always made it clear that we are seeking the power to make regulations in the event that the Government should decide to proceed with standardised packaging, having received the Chantler review and considered everything in the round. Making the decision on those powers now would enable us to proceed apace at that point. I hope that that clarifies the matter for my hon. Friend.

As I was saying, the Government would not necessarily use all the powers I have just described, and if we proceed, we will need to decide which aspects would be included in any regulations. The House would have the chance to comment further on the matter, through the affirmative resolution procedure, were the Government to decide to go ahead. It is prudent to take a comprehensive approach now, however, so that we can be prepared for the future.

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

Having had a background in multinational brand management, I know why multinationals invest hundreds of thousands of pounds in brand graphics and mnemonics to exaggerate sales. Does the Minister not agree that that proves that blank or standardised packaging would have an impact on sales?

[Jane Ellison]

That is for the review to comment on. I hope that hon. Members will understand that I am not trying to be unhelpful in not responding in detail to their interventions. We have put in place a process that we think will be the most robust way of making policy in this area, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not commenting in detail on his point. I am sure that the review is looking in detail at all these aspects; they were certainly explored during the consultation.

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

Just to finish this point off, will the Minister make it clear that she and her colleagues will consider a wider range of factors alongside the outcome of the review before deciding how to proceed?

[Jane Ellison]

That is something we have put on record a number of times, and I can confirm it again tonight. We have always said that Ministers would proceed having received the review and given consideration to all the wider aspects of the policy. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

The requirements would apply only to the retail packaging of tobacco products, which means the packaging that will be, 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 are not seen by the public.

These provisions would apply on a UK-wide basis, as the necessary legislative consent motions have been secured. As I have already said, I will not pre-empt the outcome of Sir Cyril’s review or of the decision-making process, but these provisions mean that we would be able to act without delay if we were to decide to go ahead. I want to emphasise that Sir Cyril will not be making the decision for Ministers on whether to proceed with standardised packaging. That decision will be made by Ministers in the light of the wide range of relevant considerations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has tabled three amendments on standardised packaging. The first five clauses of the packaging provisions set out the test that Ministers will need to consider before bringing forward regulations. The regulation-making powers in the Bill will allow Ministers to take a reasonable and balanced view of the available evidence regarding the effect that regulations as a whole would have on the health and welfare of children. This approach to ministerial decision making is absolutely appropriate and these clauses are in keeping with the approach that Minsters would ordinarily take in decision-making processes of this kind.

My hon. Friend’s three amendments seek to remove the ability of Ministers to take a reasonable and balanced view of the evidence, and we feel that they would put unnecessary and unwarranted constraints on Ministers’ consideration of how any proposed regulations would impact on children’s health or welfare. Constraining Ministers’ decision making in that way would probably have the effect of stopping the use of the powers altogether. For that reason, I do not support my hon. Friend’s amendments. I also remind the House that the regulations would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

I should like to move on to the age of sale for nicotine products. We have introduced provisions for a regulation-making power to prohibit the sale of nicotine products such as e-cigarettes to people under the age of 18. Public health experts, many retailers—particularly small retailers—and the electronic cigarette industry support the introduction of an age of sale restriction for e-cigarettes. At present, no such general legal restriction is in place, and we want to correct this situation.

As e-cigarettes are novel products, we have very little evidence on the impact of children using them. For example, we do not know what impact their use might have on the developing lungs of young people. Public health experts have expressed concern to me that nicotine products could act as a gateway into smoking tobacco, as well as undermining efforts to reshape social norms around tobacco use. Young people can rapidly develop nicotine dependence, and nicotine products deliver nicotine and cause addiction. Attempts were made last year to include an age-of-sale provision applicable throughout the EU in the revised European tobacco products directive, but that was not achieved. We therefore want to take this opportunity to put such a provision in place domestically through this Bill.

18:00

The penalty for committing the offence of selling a nicotine product to a person under 18 would be a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale—that is currently £2,500, the same penalty as applies in respect of tobacco. The Government believe it is wrong as a matter of principle to sell nicotine products to children. We have a responsibility to protect children from addiction, which is why this provision is important. I welcome the support that the e-cigarette industry and retailers have expressed for it.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I fully understand and accept what my hon. Friend has said. Do these proposals in any way affect adults who may buy e-cigarettes for people under the age of 18?

[Jane Ellison]

That is a good point, to which I will return, if my right hon. Friend will allow me. I will consider that and we will have an answer for him.

[Mrs Main]

How does this affect 17-year-olds who have already taken up smoking and wish to try to stop through using e-cigarettes? How would they manage to buy this product?

[Jane Ellison]

My understanding is that if a nicotine-containing product is licensed for medicinal use—licensed as a quit-smoking tool—it can already be prescribed by doctors. Some e-cigarette manufacturers have already indicated that in order to make a medicinal claim about their product’s ability to help people quit, they will seek to use the medicines regulations. If such a product becomes licensed as a medicine, it will be able to be prescribed as a smoking cessation aid in the same way that other nicotine-containing products can be. I hope that answer is helpful.

On proxy purchasing, we believe we must take action to address both the supply of and demand for tobacco products among young people if we are to reduce the uptake of smoking. Many retailers over the years have felt a little left alone to bear the burden of enforcement in this area, so I welcome both the work of responsible retailers to ensure that tobacco is not sold to people under the age of 18, and the support provided to them by retailer bodies such as the Association of Convenience Stores. There is support in both Houses for creating a proxy purchase offence for tobacco, and the Government have carefully reflected on the arguments that have been made. Retailers feel it is unfair that it is an offence for retailers to sell cigarettes to children and young people, yet there is no offence of proxy purchasing on behalf of children and young people. Retailers also feel it is inconsistent to have a proxy purchase offence for alcohol but not for tobacco. The Government want to continue to tackle the access that young people have to tobacco, which is why we have proposed this amendment.

The provisions would make it an offence for an adult to buy, or attempt to buy, tobacco for someone under the age of 18. That will be enforced by local authority trading standards officers, who will be able to issue a fixed penalty notice if they believe an offence has been committed, rather than taking prosecution action in the first instance. Local authorities will not be required to carry out regular programmes of enforcement in the way they have to on age of sale of tobacco, so we do not believe that this offence will bring into place any significant new regulatory burdens. Local authorities know their communities better than anyone and will know how best to address their public health priorities. We have devolved wide public health responsibilities and ring-fenced budgets to local authorities, and this amendment allows them to take targeted enforcement action on proxy purchasing where they consider it is needed.

The arguments relating to effective enforcement have been well rehearsed in previous debates. Experience in Scotland suggests that we should not to expect a vast number of convictions, and we should not measure the success of this new offence by the number of prosecutions or fixed penalties issued. I expect, however, that the new offence will generate worthwhile deterrent effects. As I said, in a new public health landscape where more powers are devolved to directors of public health there may be opportunities to explore work where there is a particular local problem.

Finally, I will address the issue of smoking in private vehicles carrying children. In another place an amendment was agreed to enable the Government to make regulations to make 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”.

The amendment we are debating today was drawn up by the Government, with the support of the peers who tabled the initial amendment, to deliver the intention of the amendment in a legally workable way. We have a responsibility to be sure that any amendment that could make its way on to the statute book should work in practice. The technical amendment was agreed on Third Reading in another place.

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

My hon. Friend says that she wants this to be workable. If a 17-year-old was driving a car and smoking at the same time, but nobody else was in the car, would they be guilty of an offence?

[Jane Ellison]

We have been discussing the issue earlier today, but we will look in more detail at that sort of detail when the House has voted on the principle of this and we have the view of both Houses. Today, the House is examining the principle, not detailed regulations, which would need to be brought forward and which would be subject to the affirmative resolution.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the Minister helping us to get to the bottom of this. I understand that under rule 148 of The Highway Code a driver is prohibited from smoking, eating, drinking, doing a crossword or listening to a loud radio at the wheel, for very obvious reasons. If that is the case—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we have got the message. The hon. Gentleman has had two interventions. We are going very well, so let us not challenge the Minister too much so early on.

[Jane Ellison]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Clearly there will be a lively debate about this provision, and I wish to draw my remarks to a conclusion soon—

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

I am just responding to another intervention. Let me deal with that one before I take another. Clearly there will be a debate about this provision. The Government have sought to reflect the views expressed in another place by introducing an amendment that is technically workable. There will be a debate on it, we will see what the view of the House is and we will take our steer on the principle of the issue having heard the views of both Houses.

[Simon Kirby]

Will the Minister assure me that if this amendment is passed, it will be only part of the solution and that we should continue to educate people of the dangers of passive smoking?

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend anticipates some of my next remarks, and I agree wholeheartedly with what he says.

The amendment would amend existing smoke-free legislation in the Health Act 2006 to make it clear that the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers have the powers to make regulations to provide for a private vehicle to be smoke-free when a person under the age of 18 is present. During the passage of the 2006 Act, Ministers at the time said they did not want to use the powers in that legislation to make private vehicles smoke-free. This amendment, if enacted by Parliament, would make it clear that regulations could be made, if the Government so decided, to prohibit smoking in private vehicles carrying children.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

My hon. Friend described this measure as “workable”, but I wonder how she envisages it being enforced. Are we going to have smoking police weaving in and out of the traffic, looking in car windows? There must be a serious answer—how could this be enforced?

[Jane Ellison]

Enforcement has been the subject of much of the debate in both Houses over a number of years, and clearly the detail of that would be looked at in regulation, if the House is minded to give the Government a steer on the principle of this. So that is not a matter for today’s debate, but I am sure it will be—[Interruption.] It is not for me to comment on the detail of it, but I am sure it will be explored during the debate that follows my speech.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

I am going to give way to someone I have not given way to yet.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

As with legislation on the use of seatbelts and mobile phones in cars, we will want everyone to abide, but if the vast majority of people abide, it will have a positive impact on the health of children who would otherwise be affected by passive smoking.

[Jane Ellison]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates the debate to come, during which the Government will listen carefully to the range of views expressed by Members on both sides of the House.

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

When the House decided to ban smoking in pubs and clubs, we were told exactly the same thing—that that would not be enforceable—but it has proved to be perfectly enforceable.

[Jane Ellison]

I thank my hon. Friend for putting his view on record. I am sure that we will hear further views in the debate that follows.

[Mr Charles Walker]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

I want to make a bit of progress because I sense that a lively debate will follow my speech, so I want to leave time for that.

The Government—and all Members—are clear that children should not be exposed to second-hand smoke, which can be particularly harmful to young children, and we know that young people often have little choice about being in places where they are exposed to smoke. Nevertheless, there are obviously many ways of trying to achieve that aim, which takes me on to the point about education raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Simon Kirby).

We need smokers to protect children not only in the family car, but in any enclosed environment, including the home. Many argue that legislation is the answer, and we will debate that today, but social marketing campaigns to help smokers and parents to understand the risks of second-hand smoke and strongly to encourage voluntary behaviour change are also vital. We would all like to think that the vast majority of parents would not knowingly risk the health of their children. In the event that legislation is introduced to stop smoking in cars carrying children, we should measure its success not by the number of enforcement actions, but by the reduction in exposure to second-hand smoke.

As I have said, the Government will listen carefully to what Parliament has to say about the important principle of whether we should have the power to legislate to prevent smoking in cars when children are present. We will then consider what needs to happen next, which is why, if hon. Members will forgive me, I am not able to talk in great detail about some of the points that they have raised—they are questions for the next stage, once the will of Parliament has been expressed. However, in any event, I have asked Public Health England to continue its work on behaviour change in this area, including through social marketing campaigns. I have asked it to carry out targeted work with local authorities and public health directors in places where we know that there are problems. When Parliament’s will is known and we can assess the maximum impact that can be achieved through education, we will consider putting in place wider public information campaigns.

Arguments about effective enforcement were well rehearsed during the passage of this Bill and the consideration of private Members’ Bills on this matter, including that promoted by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I look forward to hearing the debate on smoking in cars with children present and to finding out the will of the House on the principle of the Lords amendment. I also hope that the House will support our proposals on other aspects of tobacco control: the regulation-making powers on standardised packaging; and measures on the age of sale for electronic cigarettes and the proxy purchasing of tobacco.

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

Today the House has the opportunity to vote for a number of measures that will protect children, help to transform attitudes and improve our nation’s public health. I am proud to speak in favour of all the amendments in the group, with the exception of amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendment 124, and I hope that hon. Members from all parties will support the Lords amendments in the Lobby.

It is worth remembering that when the Bill left the House, it did not contain any of the tobacco measures before us today. Those provisions are a credit to those in the other place who successfully argued for them, for which I commend them. The package of measures was passed with a great deal of agreement in the other place, so I hope that we can preserve that consensus in this House.

While I shall focus my remarks chiefly on smoking in cars carrying children, let me first speak to the other measures in the group. I welcome Lords amendment 124, which deals with the standardised packaging of tobacco products. It must be said that the Government have taken a rather long and winding route to get to here, with a few sharp turns along the way. As we heard from the Minister, the Lords amendment is only an enabling provision, because while it gives Ministers the power to introduce standardised packaging, we have no 100% assurance that that will happen. It is no secret that the Opposition would prefer more immediate action, but it is good that we finally see legislation in black and white. Labour Members sincerely hope that, once Sir Cyril has reported, Ministers will do the right thing and use the power. Will the Minister update us on when Sir Cyril will report? Will she guarantee that if he does recommend standardised packaging for tobacco products, secondary legislation will be brought forward before the general election?

18:15

[Mrs Main]

I shall keep my intervention brief because many hon. Members wish to speak and we do not have much time. The Minister and the hon. Lady have talked about smoking in cars, but Lords amendment 125 refers to smoking in a “private vehicle”, which means that it will cover any vehicle, including motorised homes. We need to be absolutely clear that any vehicle will be affected, not just cars.

[Luciana Berger]

I shall come on to talk about measures on vehicles that were introduced in the 2006 Act. Lords amendment 125 refers specifically to private vehicles.

I also welcome Lords amendments 122 and 123, which deal with nicotine-containing products. I agree with the Minister that it is sensible to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to under-18s. E-cigarettes can help smokers who are trying to quit, but they should not be available to children, especially when there are so many question marks about the long-term health effects of nicotine and when concern has been expressed that e-cigs might act as gateway products that could lead some young people to take up tobacco smoking.

I am especially pleased to support Lords amendment 121, on proxy purchasing, which will prevent adults from buying cigarettes on behalf of children. Labour proposed that policy by tabling amendments in the other place last year. It is already illegal to buy alcohol on behalf of under-age children, so it does not make sense that the same offence does not apply to tobacco products given that, if they are used as directed, they kill half of all lifetime smokers. I am glad that the Government now agree with us, but I hope that the Minister will be able to share with hon. Members the Government’s rationale for introducing a maximum fine of £2,500, given that the equivalent penalty for the alcohol offence is £5,000.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 125 and the question of protecting children from adults smoking in cars. I pay tribute to everyone who has campaigned for such a measure, especially the British Lung Foundation and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I also applaud my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who tabled the original amendment. Since that amendment was successfully passed, the Government have laid out how that Labour proposal could be written into law. In the final analysis, the decision before the House comes down to a simple question: if we know beyond doubt that passive smoking in an enclosed space can do serious harm to a person’s health and that hundreds of thousands of children are being subjected to passive smoking in a car every single week, and if we know from our experience of similar laws passed in this country and others that legislation can have a major impact by changing behaviour and improving public health, should we act and do something, or stand by and do nothing? We say that we cannot afford not to act.

[Tim Loughton]

By that same token, does the hon. Lady concede that we should criminalise pregnant women who smoke, on the basis that their child is in an even more confined space than a car?

[Luciana Berger]

We are considering a specific provision, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to bring forward further measures, I am sure that the House would wish to debate them. We are talking about children who do not have a choice when travelling in a car.

We all know the dangers of passive smoking, but the reality is that its worst consequences are inflicted predominantly on the very youngest in our society. Children are especially vulnerable to the dangers because they have smaller lungs and faster breathing rates than adults.

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

While it is easy for opponents to make a mockery of the suggestion —no doubt we will hear a great deal more of that this evening—has not the House of Commons a responsibility to do everything possible to protect children from the effects of smoking? If the proposal can work, it is at least worth a try.

[Luciana Berger]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are up against time and a lot of Members want to speak, so I would be grateful if we could move on as quickly as possible.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He raises a point that I am seeking to make in my contribution: we have an opportunity to do something, so I hope that Members will support the Lords amendment in the Lobby tonight.

Bronchitis, asthma, meningitis, glue ear, the common cold and reduced lung function are just some of the many respiratory illnesses that can be suffered by children as a result of passive smoking.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

If smoking is so damaging to children’s health, surely the logic of the hon. Lady’s argument is that we should ban smoking in people’s homes.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I will talk later about the toxicity of smoke in an enclosed vehicle, because many studies have shown that children are susceptible to passive smoke in the back of a car in a way that they are not in a building or in the home.

Each year around 300,000 GP appointments are attended as a direct result of children suffering from illnesses linked to passive smoking, 10,000 have to be admitted to hospital and, according to a 2010 report by the Royal College of Physicians, roughly 40 families lose infants to sudden cot deaths. If the health and tragic human costs were not justification enough, it is estimated that treating children for the effects of passive smoking costs our NHS some £23 million every single year.

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luciana Berger]

I will give way one more time.

[Mark Tami]

I am old enough to remember when it used to be okay to smoke on underground trains and on planes. Does my hon. Friend agree that society has moved on and that this proposal is just part of that?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. I will mention some of the comments that children have made about that and outline why young people feel so strongly about this important measure.

A significant proportion of the effects of passive smoking felt by children are linked to passive smoking in a car, not least because—this relates to the intervention made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main)—tobacco smoke in a small, enclosed car can create levels of pollution that are up to 35 times greater than the level deemed safe by the World Health Organisation. A single cigarette in a car can create concentrations of smoke up to 11 times greater than those in a smoky pub of old.

We are not talking about a small number of cases. Many people have contacted me in recent days, some of them suffering from many of the conditions I have mentioned, including asthma, to say that they wish a ban had been introduced when they were children. Other people have said in recent weeks, “Surely no adult smokes in a car with children.” Unfortunately, according to the British Lung Foundation, nearly half a million children are exposed to potentially toxic levels of smoke in cars every single week. That number is based on children aged between 11 and 15. If we take babies, infants and primary school children into account as well, the number is likely to be even higher. According to a study by SmokeFree Sports in Liverpool, the area I represent, around a quarter of nine and 10-year-olds reported being exposed to smoking in cars.

That brings me to the crux of my argument about why the proposal is justified. This is about children, who often do not have a choice about how they travel and cannot speak out. In 2010, a third of children surveyed said that they were too frightened or embarrassed to ask an adult not to smoke with them in the car. If we want to protect future generations from the dangers of smoking, we need a comprehensive approach.

I agree with the Minister when she says that we need better education and that we have to improve public awareness. Adults and parents have a duty to act responsibly, but we know from experience that when education is accompanied by legislation, it can help bring about profound changes in behaviour. That is why we already have laws on what people can and cannot do in cars, from not using mobile phones at the wheel to compulsory use of car seats for children under the age of five. It is why our existing smoke-free legislation already makes it illegal to smoke in the workplace or in public vehicles. The proposal to protect children from smoking in cars would build on that precedent.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Luciana Berger]

I am not going to take any more interventions, because many Members have prepared speeches and wish to contribute to the debate.

The proposal has the overwhelming support of royal colleges, health experts and leading authorities on public health from across our country. In the past week alone, 700 doctors have written to the British Medical Journal in support of a ban on smoking in cars with children. YouGov polls have shown that the measure enjoys the support of up to 80% of the public. It also has the support of the Liverpool Schools’ Parliament, which voted for such a ban unanimously. Many colleagues who have visited schools in recent days have encountered similar enthusiasm from young people.

To those who say that this law would be unenforceable, unworkable or a dreadful infringement of civil liberty, let me offer this thought: 38 years ago this month this House debated a law that would make a certain behaviour in a car illegal, and Government Members were granted a free vote. There was general agreement about health and safety, but Members raised concerns about whether it would be enforceable or a step too far. One Member said that it was a mark of the fact that

“as a society we are becoming over-governed and over-regulated.”—[Official Report, 1 March 1976; Vol. 906, c. 1006.]

Despite that, the proposal passed that night with a convincing majority and eventually became law. More than 30 years on, no one is arguing that we should repeal the law that made it compulsory to wear a seat belt. In the same way, few people would argue that we should bring back smoking in enclosed public spaces or on the London underground. In the meantime, the proportion of motorists wearing a seat belt has risen from around 25% to over 90%. It shows just how powerful the effect can be when Parliament unites and sends a signal. We have such an opportunity before us today. This is a matter of child protection, not adult choice.

Members across the House will be familiar with the words of the great liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill. He prized liberty above all else, but even he accepted that a civilized society should exert influence over an individual in order to prevent harm to others. This is a simple and straightforward measure that would make a world of difference to hundreds of thousands of children across our country, reducing the misery inflicted by passive smoking, saving millions of pounds for our NHS and protecting children who do not have a choice and do not have a voice, and who in 20 years’ time, I am sure, will wonder how it was ever allowed in the first place. I sincerely hope that Members on both sides of the House will support the measure today.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I have no quibble at all with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who represents the smug, patronising excesses of new Labour. They think that the only reason they came into Parliament was to ban everybody else from doing all the things that they happen not to like. What perturbs me is that Conservative Ministers appear not to have grasped the concept, even though they claim to be Conservatives, that we can disapprove of something without banning it. This is just another in the long line of triumphs for the nanny state.

I will not give way because I want to rattle through what I have to say in order to give other Members an opportunity to speak. I believe that parents are much better placed to decide what is best for their children than the state is. If we want to encourage parents to take responsibility for their children, we have to give them that responsibility. We will never get parents to do that if the Government say, “Don’t worry about taking responsibility for your children, because we will make all the relevant decisions for you. You don’t have to worry about anything.” That is not something we should be encouraging.

The Conservative party used to believe in the rights of private property, and that people could do as they pleased in their own private property. Their private vehicle is their own private property. If people wish to smoke in a car with children, that is a decision for them to take. As Conservatives, we should not interfere with that.

Members have talked about small and confined places and about restricting the proposal to private vehicles, so why not caravans? I know that Labour Members are not going to ask their friends in the Gypsy community to stop smoking in caravans, so we will never have the prospect of that happening. What is the difference between a caravan and a small car? What is the difference between a small, confined flat and an open-top car? Why is it worse for people to smoke in an open-top car than in a confined flat or a caravan? Why is one much more of a danger to health than the other? This in no way reflects the fact that most car journeys are very short. Why do Labour Members think it is an absolute outrage and terribly dangerous for somebody’s child if they smoke in a two-minute car journey but absolutely fine for them to smoke for hour after hour in a caravan that is, in many cases, just as much of a confined space? The whole thing is absolute nonsense.

18:30

We all know where this is going to end up. The people at Action on Smoking and Health, who appear to be the only people the Department of Health listens to, are not going to hand over their company car keys when this measure gets passed tonight—they will be campaigning for the next one, which is of course to get smoking banned in everybody’s homes as well. Once we have agreed to the principle of banning smoking in people’s private cars, how on earth can we logically say that there is a great difference regarding people’s homes? Of course, we cannot. We all know that this will end up in people’s homes and caravans, and all the rest of it.

[Mr Winnick]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I have said I am not going to give way. The hon. Gentleman can listen for once.

Moreover, this is totally and utterly unenforceable. What on earth are we doing saying to the police, whose resources are already stretched, that all of a sudden this should be a new priority for them to undertake? Have they got nothing better to do than go up as close as they can to a moving car to see whether there happens to be a small child in the back seat? Of course, this is not just about small children but all children. How on earth does the driver prove that the person in the back of the car is over 18 rather than under 18? What happens when the driver throws the cigarette away and the police have to try to prove whether they were smoking when they were pulled over? The whole thing is completely unenforceable. It is gesture politics of the worst kind, with Ministers and shadow Ministers trying to flex their health zealotry at all these health organisations and saying, “We’re tougher on these matters than the others.”

Standardised packaging—it is not plain packaging, as some people say—is also nonsense. In many cases, the standardised packaging is more colourful than the existing packaging, so this measure will not do anything for the people who say that all the colourful packaging encourages people to smoke. It is already the case that cigarettes cannot be displayed in large shops. What on earth is the point of having plain packaging for products that are already behind a counter and cannot even be seen? Again, the whole thing is complete nonsense.

All these arguments are arguments for banning smoking altogether. If people had the courage of their convictions and said, “We should ban smoking altogether”, I would at least have some respect for them, but they dare not say that that is what they want to do, even though we know it is their real agenda. While cigarettes are a legal product, brands should be free to use their own branding on the packs. Standardised packaging would simply be a triumph of the nanny state that would presumably soon be followed by plain packaging for alcohol, sweets, crisps, and all the foods that supposedly lead to obesity. Once we have gone down this road for one thing, why would we not have plain packaging for everything? We know, particularly given the current Ministers and shadow Ministers, that that is what it would quickly lead to.

I have tabled three amendments to Lords amendment 124 to try to make it more sensible. The Lords amendment states that the Secretary of State can make regulations if he believes that they

“may contribute at any time to reducing the risk of harm to…the health or welfare of”

children—I repeat, “may” contribute. This gives the Secretary of State the authority to make a decision on a whim just because he happens to think that it might make a difference. My first amendment would change “may” to “will” so that he would need to have some evidence for making a change rather than just doing it on a whim.

The second amendment relates to regulations. Under Lords amendment 124, the Government are saying that they can make lots of provisions and as long as some of them are capable of having a positive effect, that is fine. They can propose 10 ridiculous things and two sensible ones, and the regulations allow them to do it as long as some of them are sensible. My amendment says that “each” provision that they want to bring in should be capable of making a difference, not just the odd one or two in a whole series.

The Minister said that it would be a constraint on the Minister’s power to accept my amendments. Well, I make no apology for trying to constrain the Minister’s power. That is what the House of Commons is all about—trying to make sure that sensible decisions are taken based on evidence, not just on the latest whim of the nanny state brigade whom she has listened to. We are supposedly here to try to defend the freedoms of people in this country. This Government want to trample over every single one of those freedoms. It makes me wonder what is the difference between having Labour or this Government in charge. I expect no better from Labour, but I did expect an awful lot better from a supposedly Conservative-led Government.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Listening to this debate, I could have heard the same things said in 2006 when the House came to a decision on smoking in public places. That is public health legislation which the Prime Minister says is good legislation, although he did not vote for it at the time. I hope that Members will bear that in mind.

I hope that Members will also bear in mind, as we always must when considering such legislation, that currently in the UK over 100,000 people a year die prematurely from smoking tobacco. I support the amendment, which will, I hope, further restrict the use of tobacco not just by young people but, in turn, by adults. As the Minister said, two thirds of people who start smoking are young when they do so, and it is addictive.

One of my points relates to what the Minister said about e-cigarettes not being sold to people under the age of 18. Some people argue that e-cigarettes are a gateway to tobacco use, but the organisation that I have worked with on this over many years—Action on Smoking and Health, which the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) clearly admires—says that there is no firm evidence for that at this stage; it is doing another survey this year. The important thing is that over 2 million people are using e-cigarettes, some of them so that they smoke less tobacco and some so that they smoke no tobacco. I agree with the Minister that we should view them as a medicinal product—as part of the family of nicotine replacement therapies. That should be our approach in stopping these awful deaths from smoking. VAT on nicotine replacement therapy products is currently 5%. If e-cigarettes were also licensed and charged at the same rate, that would benefit everybody.

I support what the Minister said about proxy purchasing. This has not yet been addressed and it should have been. Alcohol and tobacco are harmful, depending on how they are used, although alcohol is not as bad as tobacco.

We have debated standardised packaging many times in the House and heard the arguments about printers being affected, and so on. The hon. Member for Shipley said that standardised packages are very complicated, and of course they are. I hope that we will have better safeguards to stop people engaging in contraband activities. There is no way that this measure will do anything other than stop people advertising on cigarette packets the products that cause all these premature deaths.

I support the Government and the Opposition on banning smoking in cars with children. Enforcement is always an issue, and we accept that. When I first started driving, people had to have seat belts in cars but did not have to wear them, and only one person in four did so. When the law was changed, 90% of people started wearing them practically overnight. This is about changing habits. We could not have a worse situation than somebody in a confined space like a car smoking cigarettes when children are there.

Everybody said that the ban on smoking in public places would never be enforced. I was on the Health Committee when we had that debate and we went to Dublin to look at what had happened in Ireland. A guy there tried to get publicity by saying, “I’m going to be smoking in this pub tonight. Will you come down and get me?” However, there were very few problems with enforcement and the same is true of us now. We have not seen all the details, but, as far as I am concerned, the provision is a further step towards protecting young people and future generations from premature death as a result of ill health, and we should support that.

[Mr Charles Walker]

My concern about the Lords amendment is that we are in danger of criminalising otherwise very loving parents. We should guard against that. It would be appalling if people who have been good parents in every other way found themselves being criminalised as a result of smoking in a car when their children were present.

I hear the argument about seat belts and it is perfectly and entirely reasonable for the Government to set the terms of their use on the road. If the Government decide that someone who wants to drive on a road has to wear a seat belt, that is highly reasonable. I suggest that, if the Government really are determined to press ahead with banning smoking in cars, that is exactly what they should do: they should ban the consumption of alcohol in cars by any person of any age and ban smoking in cars by any person of any age. That would be a much more honest approach, because, as I have said, if we go down this road we will be criminalising hundreds of thousands of parents. Will a repeat offender—someone who has been penalised three or four times—have their children taken into care because they are deemed to be an abusive parent?

There is an enormous degree of hypocrisy in this House. I am pleased to say that I am a teetotal non-smoker. There are many people in this place who want to ban smoking because they think it is not done by very nice people, but they are much more relaxed about alcohol because of their own habits. If Members are genuinely concerned about the welfare of children, they need to realise that alcohol is the problem, not tobacco. Hundreds of thousands of children have their lives blighted by alcoholic parents and the problems associated with alcohol, yet we never talk about that in this House, because some Members think, “We, as nice people, drink.” I am extremely concerned about the direction of travel.

My final point—I know that others want to speak—is that we will drive another wedge between the police and those they are policing if we implement this provision. It is nonsense. We will expect the police to intervene and that will further widen the gap between them and those they are policing. That should be avoided and we should be very careful about widening that gap.

[Ian Paisley]

Like a number of Members, I am deeply concerned that this provision means that Parliament will slowly but surely become a farce. If Parliament wants to start legislating on issues for reasons of good public relations, this provision is a good idea. However, if we peel it back and look at the evidence, we will see that it is not essential.

We should take time to reflect on the evidence in favour of the Lords amendments. On legislating to prevent people from smoking in cars when children are present, let us be clear that the law, under rule 148 of The Highway Code, currently prevents a driver from smoking in any vehicle. He or she should not smoke in any vehicle when driving, so Lords amendment 125 is about the behaviour of passengers and not necessarily that of the driver. That will make it even more difficult for the enforcer—the police officer—to determine the actions and age of those smoking in a vehicle. We should be in the business of making good, sound and solid legislation, and I do not believe that this provision has been properly thought out. It should be taken back to the drawing board and we should consider who the passenger is and who the provision will affect.

The issue of enforcement is utterly critical, because the police are already not properly resourced to do the job they are currently asked to do in combating real criminals. If we set up another criminal class in the community, we will have to ask the police to go after them. Some police officers will take great joy in going after a soft-touch conviction, but that is missing the point and we have to recognise that the police would not have sufficient resources to tackle the issue.

The crux of the matter is: how many people actually engage in smoking in a vehicle when there is a child present? All we have heard from Members on both Front Benches is a guesstimate, not facts. When New Zealand carried out a similar action, it found that 0.13% of people smoked in a vehicle with a child present. We are asking this nation to legislate on something that is an incredibly minor problem.

18:45

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

I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s point about rule 148 of The Highway Code. It is, in fact, only advisory with regard to avoiding distractions such as smoking and playing loud music in vehicles. It is not mandatory in the sense the hon. Gentleman might have been suggesting.

[Ian Paisley]

I was not suggesting that it was mandatory, but it does say that people should not do it. Rule 148 is very clear that people should not do a crossword, read a map, eat a sandwich or smoke while driving.

That takes us back to the crux of the matter. A person who lights up and smokes in front of a child—I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept this—is a prat, in my view, and we as a House should not be legislating on that, but educating. What we should really be engaging in is educating people. We do not require legislation to educate people not to be prats and to be sensible.

The number of people involved is minuscule, so is it right that this House is taking time, money and effort to legislate on such a minor problem? I do not believe it is.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The hon. Gentleman says that the number of people smoking in cars with children present is minuscule, but he has produced no evidence to back that up in relation to the UK. If the number is so minuscule, why is the provision so disproportionate and excessive and how would it make enforcement impossible in the way he suggests?

[Ian Paisley]

Let me take one of the facts raised by Labour tonight. According to tobacco consumption rates in the United Kingdom, 22% of people smoke in the Liverpool district, but according to the statistic put in front of us tonight, 25% of all children are subject to being in front of smokers. The number of people smoking is, therefore, higher than the Government statistics show. We need more clarity on the stats being put about by Members on both sides of the House. Labour and Government Front Benchers should wait, as they said they would in November, for the outcome of the Cyril Chantler independent review. If we wait for the gathering of evidence that we can all accept, we will be in a much stronger position to make the decision we are making tonight.

I am also concerned about the plain packaging measures, which will decimate an industry. There is not sufficient evidence to show that they will do what everyone wants them to do, which is to stop people smoking. A pound store I visited sells boxes for people to put their fags in. It is even possible to get ones that say “Vote Labour” or “Vote Conservative” on them. Believe you me, Mr Deputy Speaker: whenever cigarettes are sold in the future under this provision, these boxes will be given out freely by certain companies because they will take away the one warning that we do know is important, which is that smoking kills. Tonight we are putting in place an opportunity for people to cover cigarettes with no warning whatsoever.

The biggest problem that this country faces on tobacco is the illicit trade: 25% of all cigarettes smoked in the United Kingdom tonight will have been smuggled by criminals. We as a House should do something, on a united basis, to wipe out such criminal empires, instead of making it easy for them by giving them plain cigarette packages that are simpler to print, smuggle and get into the hands of children. That should be our real cause and health concern.

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

I rise to support Lords amendment 125 for the very simple reason that children have no choice about getting into a car. Every day, up and down this country, children are told to get into a car by their parents or guardians; they have no choice. I think that we should operate on the basis of the “Do no harm” principle. The facts are clear: 165,000 incidents of childhood disease are caused every year by passive smoking. Not all car journeys are short: a close family member of mine was made to get into a car and to travel many hours to go on holiday while a pipe was smoked in the car. Despite protests, that pipe continued to be smoked.

On enforcement, many laws are not properly enforced—like all hon. Members, I want full enforcement—but is anyone saying that we should abandon the law against driving while holding a mobile to one’s ear because it is not always properly enforced? I have written to my police force to ask how many convictions they have had for people holding a phone to their ear.

Yes, in a perfect world we would change this situation through education, and of course we should refrain from banning things unless we have to, but the fact is that too many children—an estimated 185,000 every day—have to put up with it. Against their will—they have no choice—they are told to get into a small metal unit. We are here to speak up for those who have no voice, which is why I am proud to support the measure tonight.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I quote:

“I would ban smoking in cars where children are present. I would do that for the protection of children. I believe in protecting children. I would see it as a child welfare issue.”

Those were precisely my feelings when I introduced the Smoking in Private Vehicles Bill under the ten-minute rule exactly 964 days ago. I did so after a briefing from the British Lung Foundation, with which I have been proud to work ever since. My thoughts have not changed in the two and a half years since, and I am delighted that the day has come when hon. Members have the opportunity for a decisive vote to make life healthier for half a million children. Although I share the sentiment and could hardly have put it better myself, the words I started with are not mine; they date from February this year and are those of the then public health Minister, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry).

In Committee in the other place, an amendment was tabled and supported by all political parties, with eight peers speaking in favour of the ban. Such is the cross-party nature of the measure. This will be the fourth time that Members of this House have asked for a definitive vote on the issue. After my ten-minute rule Bill failed to get a Second Reading, the noble Lord Ribeiro’s private Member’s Bill won support in the other place but failed to make progress in the Commons. In this Chamber, we tried to amend this Bill, but we failed again. Now, after sustained pressure from a cross-party group of Back Benchers and Lords, four measures are proposed in the Bill—including powers to bring in standardised packaging of cigarettes and to prevent smoking in cars with children present—and I welcome them all.

It is not just parliamentarians who support such a ban—quite the opposite. The changes are backed by many professional bodies and research groups. I have been delighted to work closely with other organisations, as well as the British Lung Foundation. The list is too long to name every person and organisation, but it includes Cancer Research UK, Action on Smoking and Health, the British Medical Association, the British Heart Foundation and Fresh, our own campaigning organisation that has done so much in north-east England. We must not forget the royal colleges and the 700 health professionals, who have already been mentioned.

Facts, figures and statistics in abundance have highlighted the appalling dangers of passive smoking, particularly to children and young people, and specifically in relation to smoking in vehicles. A plethora of studies have returned the same results: smoking in a vehicle significantly increases children’s exposure to harmful toxins and particulates. Numerous surveys and opinion polls have consistently shown that the public support such recommendations. I have no doubt that my fellow Members will draw attention to them as the debate progresses.

I want to focus on the arguments about enforcement and intrusion. It is important to remember that the police already have a number of duties with regard to private vehicles, and to recognise that the additional enforcement costs of a measure to outlaw smoking when children are present are minimal.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

I will not.

Other hon. Members have mentioned the non-wearing of seatbelts, which is a tricky misdemeanour to spot if ever there was one. It needs an eagle eye, but the police routinely monitor drivers and passengers alike to ensure compliance with the law. The introduction of legislation in 2006 to make the use of appropriate child restraints mandatory for children under the age of 12 were also considered very complex, and similar concerns were raised at the time. However, implementation went ahead and has been successfully enforced.

To argue that it would be too difficult and burdensome for officers to spot the act of smoking in a car, or to identify whether a child is being carried at the same time, is therefore no excuse. Indeed, I argue that such actions are markedly easier to recognise than gauging the height of a seated child to ascertain whether correct restraints are used. To suggest that officers would be unable to identify such instances is to underestimate their competence. I take much comfort from knowing that when educational campaigns on seatbelts accompanied the legislation, seatbelt use shot up from 25% to 91%, and from knowing that Department of Health figures indicate that there was 98% compliance from the moment the smoke-free legislation was introduced. I hope that the instances of such rules being flouted would be few and far between as a result of Britons’ law-abiding nature. I remain confident that, as with compliance on seatbelts, such regulations would become largely self-enforcing. Let us not forget that it is the role of the police to enforce the law.

Unlike most adults, children lack the freedom to decide when and how they travel, and do not know how harmful second-hand smoke is. Other hon. Members have already covered that point, so I will not repeat it.

There are international precedents for action: South Africa, Mauritius and Bahrain have all outlawed smoking in cars with a child present, as have seven of the eight states or territories of Australia, nine—I understand it is soon to become 10—of the 13 states in Canada and six of the 50 states in the United States. One published study from Canada has documented a positive impact on reducing second-hand smoke exposure in the relatively short term after implementation. Positively, it did not find any displacement effects of smoking being shifted to the home. It is time that we followed suit, heeded public and medical opinion, and got out of the slow lane.

I am only too aware that a positive decision for a ban still requires the Government to introduce the necessary regulations. I hope that the Minister will indicate when that is likely. The evidence strongly supports the Lords amendment, and I urge that Members on both sides of the House do likewise and stand up today for the protection of children.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May we have less chatter during speeches. It is getting difficult to hear.

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I rise to support the Government amendments to put the two regulation-making powers in the Bill, and to support the initiatives taken by Cross Benchers in the other House and by a cross-party group in this House. I speak as chair of the all-party group on smoking and health.

We have been asked to be clear about the evidence. One area in which the evidence is absolutely clear is that smoking is a childhood addiction, not an adult choice: 40% of smokers are addicted by the age of 16 and two thirds by the age of 18, while 200,000 children take up smoking every year. That is why I strongly support, and urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support, the Lords amendment to provide for the power to regulate and standardise packaging. I do so not least because of the evidence from the tobacco industry’s campaign against it, and from documents released through court cases that have demonstrated that it knows that packaging is a way of driving market share, as well as of driving people to smoke in the first place.

On passive smoking in cars, both the NHS and the World Health Organisation are very clear about the dangers of second-hand smoke for children. Other hon. Members have already listed that evidence. I do not know where the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was in relation to the data. Every week, 430,000 children aged 11 to 15 are exposed to second-hand smoke in their family cars. That is not their choice. The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) is absolutely right. This issue is not about a child’s choice, because they have no choice. They have to get into the car if their parents want them to do so.

The concentration of toxins in a car makes it a significantly different environment from a smoky pub or home. The evidence demonstrates the impact that that environment has on a child’s health. That is where the Millsian test applies. The harm to the child should trigger us to act in the way that I hope the House will act tonight. That is why I support the free vote.

19:00

On enforcement, the laws on smoking in work vehicles, wearing seat belts and using child car seats have been introduced successfully. It has been suggested that we will criminalise parents in some way. We have not criminalised them in relation to child car seats and we will not do so by legislating in this area. There is a clear case for banning smoking in cars when children are present. I hope that the proposed regulations will do just that.

The Minister spoke about social marketing. I agree that that has a key part to play in the successful implementation of such changes. However, we know that it is not enough. We saw that with the legislation on wearing seat belts. Only 25% of people wore their seat belts before the law changed. Afterwards, the proportion went up to 91%.

We can debate whether we should replace the words “smoking in cars” with the words “smoking in enclosed public places”. However, the arguments that are made by Government Members are all too often the wrong arguments and they are being left behind by society, which wants us to move again. That is why I support the Lords amendments.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Protecting children is one of the most important responsibilities that we have. We know that smoking kills, we know the dangers of passive smoking and we know that children are more at risk than adults from the effects of smoke.

Half a million children are exposed to potentially toxic levels of second-hand smoke in family cars each week, according to the British Lung Foundation. Children’s lungs are smaller and children have faster breathing rates. They are therefore particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke, especially in a confined space such as a car.

Children have no choice but to travel in a family car. Would it be good if car drivers, including parents, chose not to smoke when children were present? Absolutely. However, in the case of seat belts, it took a change in the law to ensure that there was a change in behaviour. The proportion of people wearing seat belts went up from 25% to more than 90% after legislation was introduced.

As I said, protecting children is one of our most important responsibilities. We can exercise that responsibility today. We have to choose between the right of an adult to do as he or she chooses in the privacy of his or her car and the protection of the health of children. Throughout the passage of the Bill, Government Members have rightly agreed that the protection of children is paramount. I hope that all Members will agree that we should make it an offence to smoke in a vehicle when children are present.

[Mrs Main]

I have never heard of a more illiberal, nonsensical and unenforceable proposal than Lords amendment 125. I am sorry that it is being proposed by the Government and that Members are being asked not to consider the detail, because the devil is in the detail.

As has been said, the word “vehicle” refers to a broad spectrum of containers, if I may put it like that, including motor homes, Traveller caravans and, potentially, narrow boats. The proposal suggests that smoking while driving an open-top car, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) referred, is more injurious to health than a mother smoking while pregnant. I find that impossible to accept.

I do not know how the police will arbitrate between two 17-year-olds in a car if one of them has been smoking. I do not think that we should be considering using this resource if we are not banning cigarettes, full stop. I do not smoke and have never smoked. I am a mother of four children. I fundamentally believe that we should not make bad, unenforceable law.

If the Labour party represented the working class far more than it suggests it does, it would be making a very different argument, because a huge tranche of the population will see itself criminalised. We should be advising people not to smoke in front of their children. We have been winning the argument on smoking. The Government have adverts on the television that show a mum blowing the smoke out of the door and then say, “What if you could see what it does to your child’s lungs?” We will not stop those adverts because we are trying to educate people.

Under the proposal, we will be saying that a child can get into a fog-filled car after their mum has been smoking in it. As long as she is not still doing it, that will not be an offence. We will be saying that it is an offence to smoke in a van if Traveller children or others who live in transit are sitting in the back. However, if I sit in my kitchen and people can see me through the front window, fag in hand and baby over my shoulder, comforting the child, that will not be an offence. It would be easy to track down such behaviour, so why do we not say that smoking in front of children should be banned or that smoking should be banned? It is because we think that it would be illiberal to go into people’s homes. However, some people’s homes are vehicles. I look forward to people explaining that to the communities that will be affected disproportionately.

I cannot believe that we are not supposed to inquire about the detail.

[Andrew Percy]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Main]

No, I will not give way because many colleagues who have been here from the very beginning wish to speak. I am sorry if my hon. Friend is one of them.

I cannot think that this proposal will be enforceable. We all want to protect children. In that case, perhaps we should get out the fat callipers when we see very lardy children walking down our high streets because their parents feed them junk of an evening. Perhaps we should ban fattening foods because there are more than a million people with type 2 diabetes, as has been said in the media today. Where will it stop? We need to educate people. We need to ensure that parents do what is best for their children because they believe in doing what is best for them. We cannot legislate every single risk and danger out of existence.

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

I met the school council at Broadmead primary school in Croydon last Friday and I took part in a school assembly at Norbury Manor primary school this morning. I asked the children what they thought of the proposal to ban smoking in cars that are carrying children like them. Every single child supported the ban. When I asked how many of them had been inside a car when an adult was smoking, nearly half the children put their hands up. I asked one little girl what she did when she was in a car and an adult was smoking. She held her nose and told me that she tried not to breathe.

Although those children hated the experience of being forced to breathe in cigarette smoke, they did not understand the damage that it does to their health. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and other professionals estimate that up to 160,000 children a year develop lung diseases, including asthma and bronchitis, as a result of breathing in second-hand cigarette smoke. Developing lungs are far more susceptible to smoke-related disease than those of adults. That raises the question of why we protect adults in the workplace, on public transport and in pubs from the dangers of second-hand smoke, but subject children to it in cars.

I have listened carefully to the arguments against this proposal, but I find very little merit in them. The idea that this measure is an example of the illiberal nanny state is misguided. Law making is often about striking a balance between competing rights. On what balance of rights does the right of a smoker to smoke outweigh the right of a child to grow up healthy? I do not accept that an adult should have the right to harm a child who is powerless to protect him or herself. An adult who is in a car with a smoker can get out if they want to. Often, a child cannot.

To those who say that the measure is unenforceable, I say that we heard exactly the same about the seat belt law. Education in this case has clearly not worked well enough. We need to change behaviour. That requires a strong education campaign but, crucially, that needs to be backed up by law to show how seriously the country takes the issue and to create a sufficiently powerful deterrent.

We have taken many steps to protect people from passive smoking. Without this further measure, too many children will be left struggling to avoid breathing in smoke in the back of cars and, far worse, could find themselves struggling with lung disease in later life. It is our duty today to act to protect them.

[Tim Loughton]

I am a veteran of many children’s Bills. Yet again, such a Bill has been hijacked at the 11th hour by a subject that was not part of the original Bill. Usually, the subject is smacking; today, it is smoking.

I hate, loathe and detest smoking. I do not want any of my children or anybody else’s children to smoke. However, I also hate, loathe and detest the nanny state and its increasingly frenetic and insidious tentacles, which are creeping into individuals’ private lives and spaces.

I support many other measures that will suppress smoking and reduce the prevalence of smoking. I am for in-your-face, horrific graphics that show people the ghastly things that smoking does to their insides. I am in favour of higher tax. I am in favour of pariah status for people who smoke. I have no problem with the Lords amendments on packaging and on discouraging people from buying tobacco for under-age people.

However, I am against a measure that yet again undermines the parenting role of parents in favour of the state. The state makes for a poor parent. This measure will criminalise good parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) said. People should not smoke in front of their children, whether they are in a car, outside a car, in a house or wherever else, not because the state threatens them with a fine or a criminal record, but because it is a stupid thing to do. I will not quite use the language of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but it is stupid on so many levels. We should have much more empathy towards the health and welfare of our children, but we should support parents, not seek to supplant them, as the state has an increasing tendency to do and is trying to do yet again with this amendment.

If we are serious about this measure, we should have the courage of our convictions and ban smoking altogether. There is only one way that this legislation can go, and the natural conclusion is that there will be a ban on smoking in private homes. As I said earlier—not entirely facetiously—we must face the logic that pregnant women who can do untold damage to their unborn children through smoking and through foetal alcohol syndrome, which affects one in 100 children with very serious consequences, should be criminalised for doing the same thing in principle that this amendment tries to criminalise. Then there are the implications of not feeding our children healthy food. The amendment is unenforceable. It is bad law and is about supplanting, not supporting, the parent, and I cannot support it.

[Mr Winnick]

There is the notion that this amendment on the safety of children in cars is an attack on freedom, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) rightly said, a model society will always need to put various restrictions on what individuals can and cannot do.

Reference has been made to seat belts, and it so happens that I was in the Chamber during the debates on that. I imagine that if the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) had been present at the time, he would have argued strongly against compulsory seat belts in cars—of course he would have because when I was listening to him today, I heard the authentic voice of primitive Toryism.

[Philip Davies]

Thank you!

[Mr Winnick]

I do not necessarily work on the assumption that whatever the hon. Member for Shipley opposes I should support, Mr Deputy Speaker, but nevertheless that is usually the case.

I was also around when we debated banning smoking in most places, which it was argued at the time was a grave restriction on freedom. Who in the House of Commons today, in 2014, would argue that, apart from the hon. Member for Shipley and a few others? The ban, which was so controversial at the time, has been widely accepted in the country. People said that it would not be accepted and that the law would be broken, but has it been? Where is the evidence that the law on smoking passed in the previous Parliament has been broken?

I accept entirely that it may be difficult to implement the measures that have been suggested on smoking in cars, and I do not underestimate the difficulties. I do, however, say simply that it is worth a try. Every organisation that has been mentioned and is concerned with public health has argued that the amendment should be put into law, as I believe it should be. It provides an opportunity to protect children in the way it describes, and it is likely, however difficult it may be to police, that people will accept that the law has been passed by Parliament, and that there will be a greater desire to ensure that it is observed. This measure is worth a try, and anything that can protect children from the dangers of smoking should certainly be supported tonight.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I speak as the secretary of the all-party group on smoking and health. There is only a brief time available, but the facts and figures have been presented to the House. The fact is that the younger people start to smoke, the more damage they do to their health and the shorter their lives as a result. The key point is that most young people start smoking because of their parents, siblings, friends or the media marketing of big tobacco. We need to take away the capability of big tobacco to market to young people, and I support wholeheartedly the measures on standardised packaging. Those opposing measures to stop parents smoking in cars carrying children should understand that a car contains 11 times more tobacco and nicotine than a smoky pub. Even more importantly, if a parent is driving a car with all four windows open, the level of pollution is treble the amount recommended by the US Environmental Protection Agency or the World Health Organisation. That is extremely damaging to children’s health, and I support the Lords amendment.

19:15

Ninety minutes having elapsed having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That this House agrees with Lords amendment 125.

19:15

Division 207

Ayes: 376

---

Labour: 203
Conservative: 127
Liberal Democrat: 41
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 107

---

Conservative: 99
Liberal Democrat: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Independent: 1

Lords amendment 125 agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Question put, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 121 to 124 and 150.

19:29

Division 208

Ayes: 453

---

Conservative: 201
Labour: 194
Liberal Democrat: 47
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 24

---

Conservative: 17
Labour: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Liberal Democrat: 1

Lords amendments 121 to 124 and 150 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Presumption of Innocence and EU Law

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: The thirty-second report from the European Scrutiny Committee, HC 83-xxix, Chapter 1.]

21:45

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the Draft Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings (European Union Document No. 17621/13 and Addenda 1 to 3) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Thirty-second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xxix); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

Tonight’s debate is about this House having its say on proposals from the European Commission that touch on matters at the very heart of our country’s justice system. The House has the opportunity to endorse the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee’s reasoned opinion that the European Commission’s proposal on the presumption of innocence breaches the principle of subsidiarity.

I want to be clear from the outset that this is a matter for the House and it is not the Government’s decision. The treaties give this House, and all national chambers, the right to issue reasoned opinions on the principle of subsidiarity, and that is what this debate is about: the question of subsidiarity. It is not about the question of the UK’s opt-in. I am happy to assure Members that the Government have offered time to debate the opt-in separately, ahead of the Government’s final decision. We look forward to hearing the Committee’s view on that in order to inform that decision.

The House will appreciate that questions of subsidiarity are finely balanced and we welcome the opportunity for this House to present its view directly to the European Union—a right this Government will defend and facilitate to the hilt. The idea of subsidiarity is that decision making should take place as closely as possible to the citizens whom those decisions affect. Under article 5 of protocol 2 to the treaties, the Commission needs to set out, among other things, a detailed statement on how its proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity. The reasons for concluding that the objective of the proposal can be achieved at EU level must be substantiated by qualitative and, where possible, quantitative indicators. To underline the importance of this, the treaties provide that national Parliaments—and chambers within national Parliaments—can deliver reasoned opinions to the Presidents of the EU institutions where they consider that the Commission has breached the subsidiarity principle.

The proposal the Commission has put before us relates to the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle of our country’s justice system, as it is of many other countries’ justice systems. No one in this House would seriously doubt our commitment to the principle. It stretches back as far as Roman times and is a central pillar of our common law system, as well as the common law systems in other countries. Moreover, it has been enshrined and developed in many civil law systems on the continent itself.

The principle is set out in the universal declaration of human rights and in the European convention on human rights. It is contained in the French declaration of the rights of man, and countless other constitutions around the globe. The problem, and the issue for debate tonight, is specifically whether EU action in this area can be justified or whether this is a matter for member states.

The Commission bases its argument for the proposal on the fact that member states are being effectively barred from co-operating in criminal matters because of differing standards in this area. Here I can only endorse the view set out in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report that the case simply has not been made. The Commission itself admits that evidence is scanty. It may be true that specific rules vary, and that specific practices and laws will not be identical across our different jurisdictions. Indeed, it is worth noting in passing that specific rules vary even across the United Kingdom, but that has, to my knowledge, never acted as a barrier to the co-operation of our justice systems.

We should remember that all member states are bound by the European convention. All member states should be meeting those basic standards already. As the Committee points out in the draft reasoned opinion, if there are cultural issues at play in a country’s justice system, a further piece of legislation from the EU will not resolve them.

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

The point that I am about to make will not necessarily appeal to all the Minister’s colleagues. Would it not be rather unsatisfactory if we found ourselves in a situation in which the right to a fair trial was justiciable in the European Court of Justice, rather than being dealt with in the European Court of Human Rights and by the application of the European convention on human rights in UK domestic law, which are the ways in which we have long agreed that such matters should be resolved?

[Mr Vara]

As always, my right hon. Friend makes a relevant point. For the purposes of today’s debate, however, I shall confine myself to the presumption of innocence. I am mindful that we have only 90 minutes for our debate, and many hon. Members wish to speak, including the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who I am sure will want to have a decent say in the matter, in his own way.

Mutual trust and recognition are of course important in ensuring that European justice systems can operate together when crimes span borders, but without solid evidence, that mutual trust is in practice being adversely affected by these national differences. The Commission’s case for action has not been made. There is also a much broader issue at stake. As I said, this matter lies at the very heart of our justice systems as sovereign countries.

The presumption of innocence is at the core of the rights and protections we afford in our laws and traditions, and in our constitutions, to those accused of committing a crime. That instinctively feels like a matter on which member states themselves should be making decisions. In so far as we can conclude that minimum standards are a legitimate aim—as it seems the Commission has done here—action needs to be taken at EU level, but under the terms of the treaties that permit the setting of minimum standards across the EU, we need to be wary of the Commission bringing forward totally unnecessary proposals under the umbrella of securing mutual trust and recognition. It will always claim to have passed the subsidiarity test, even when others have their doubts.

The process from here is that the reasoned opinion, if approved by the House, will be presented to the Presidents of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. If sufficient numbers of other Parliaments do likewise, the Commission will be presented with its yellow card and must rethink the proposal.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Given the great significance that my hon. Friend has rightly given to the contents of our report and to the substance of this issue, is he concerned that, as far as we know, the only other Parliament in the whole of the European Union to have tabled a reasoned opinion at this time is the Scottish Parliament?

[Mr Vara]

As always, my hon. Friend shows his great knowledge of this area, right up to the minute. He will appreciate that I can speak only for this Parliament, but I hear what he says. I am aware that my officials have been speaking to other Parliaments, but I do not know the position as regards those other member states at this time. He is quite right to suggest that, as far as justice and home affairs issues are concerned, a quarter of all member states need to have tabled a reasoned opinion in order for a yellow card to apply. In other matters, it is a third of all member states. On that note, it is worth noting that the Government wholeheartedly support the role of national Parliaments in supporting this reasoned opinion.

The Commission’s track record in this respect is not a good one. When presented with its first yellow card on the Monti II proposal, relating to the posting of workers and the right to take collective action, the Commission withdrew the proposal. However, it claimed that that had nothing to do with subsidiarity and that there was not the political will to pass the measure. More worrying was the occasion on which this House, the other place and 10 other Parliaments of EU member states issued a yellow card in respect of the proposal for a European public prosecutor’s office. The Commission barely flinched before continuing with its plans.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does the story that the Minister has just told make him feel that, given the new landscape of the EU, we need to adopt a red card system?

[Mr Vara]

We need to consider a lot of things in terms of our future relationship and, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the Prime Minister has promised a major undertaking on reforming the way forward. It will be for the public to decide, in due course, whether there is a Conservative Government, with a referendum to follow on from that.

[Mr Cash]

On the red card, does my hon. Friend accept that, in line with the fourth principle of the Bloomberg speech, which is that national Parliaments are the root of our democracy, there are circumstances in the national interest where a mere collection—an aggregation; a small number—of countries coming together on a red card would not be enough and that, in line with precedents, it would be advisable for the United Kingdom Government to accept the idea of the disapplication of laws altogether?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend, as always, makes a relevant and pertinent point, but he will appreciate that I am not going to give a definitive answer either way at the Dispatch Box.

Notwithstanding the difficulties, we must try to make our position known to the Commission. The Government will support this House and the other place in presenting reasoned opinions on subsidiarity, as and when they choose to do so. On the basis of what the Government have considered so far, we do not believe that the case for action has been made. However, as I said, this is a matter for the House to decide on, and I very much look forward to hearing what colleagues have to say.

21:56

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I will try to follow the Minister’s example and be commendably brief—I do not anticipate being intervened on by Labour Members very often this evening.

I begin by complimenting the European Scrutiny Committee and its Chair on the rigour and clarity that they bring to this matter, contrasted as it is—it saddens me to say so to this Minister—with the pusillanimous response of the Government until this evening. The Committee’s report rightly states:

“It is difficult to overstate the significance of the Commission’s proposal. It brings the law of the presumption of innocence, as laid down by the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and in the constitutional or national laws of Member States, into the realm of EU law, which has supremacy over national law, for all criminal offences. In so doing it sets out certain rights which go further than the interpretation of similar rights in the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights, and so creates separate standards of procedural safeguard under EU and ECHR law. A domestic consequence of this is that UK laws on drawing adverse inferences from a failure to cooperate or from maintaining the right to silence, which are compliant with the ECHR, would be in conflict with EU law, and so subject to Commission infringement proceedings and severe financial penalty if not amended.”

That must be right. These are matters of central importance to the liberty of the subject, the rule of law and, above all, the right to a fair trial. This is a country where those seminal legal concepts have developed over centuries. It is right that the Secretary of State is commemorating 800 years of Magna Carta, although it is sad that his alienation of the legal profession means, as we learn today, that there may be a boycott of his global law summit next year. By the same token the law, specifically the common law, has developed differently here from how it has on the continent. There will be significant differences in our approach from that of Roman law jurisdictions. But that does not mean we should not try to establish certain minimum standards in areas as fundamental as the presumption of innocence and the specific requirements set out in the articles of the draft directive.

The matters dealt with in that directive—the right not to be presented as guilty; the burden of proof resting on the prosecution; the right to remain silent; and the fact that the scope of those should go from the very start of proceedings until the final judgment is delivered—are right. I hope the Committee and the Minister are as alarmed as I am to see that 11 member states appear to have fallen below the standards demanded by the ECHR. One reason for our strong support—I believe this is still shared by the junior coalition partner—for the convention is the levelling-up effect it has on human rights across Europe.

The problem with translating that alarm into this legislation is, as the Committee identifies, twofold. First, it is not the difference in standards or the falling short per se that provokes the draft directive, but the alleged effect that has on confidence in the judicial systems in states that are failing. There is anecdotal evidence to support that; indeed, much of the debate about the European arrest warrant focused on worries about the criminal justice system in the extraditing state. However, as the Commission itself concedes, there is “limited statistical quantifiable evidence”, and that is not a good basis for such a radical restructuring of European criminal law.

Radical though the draft directive may be—this is the second problem—it goes beyond what the ECHR demands. For example, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and subsequent legislation, it is permitted in English criminal courts to draw inferences from the silence of the accused. The burden of proof does not always lie on the prosecution, and the right to representation, interpretation and translation varies at different stages of the criminal process. I do not seek to defend the law in its current form by saying that, but I do say that the directive is not the means by which to open a wholesale review of those and other provisions of the criminal law.

The Commission has not made its case on subsidiarity, it has not produced evidence, and the consequences of the proposal go beyond what is countenanced in the Commission’s arguments. The Government, taxed by the European Scrutiny Committee, have fallen in line with that view at the eleventh hour, so the Minister, whether for a quiet life or because it is easier to adopt the arguments in the reasoned opinion, has taken the path of least resistance.

It is a pity, however, that legislation is being made in such a way. The Committee is trenchant in its criticism of the Government, concluding:

“We repeat again our disappointment at the poor quality of the Government’s EMs on the three proposals forming the Commission’s procedural rights package, particularly in the light of the time taken to draft and deposit them.”

This is not an isolated incident, as last month the regulatory policy committee described the Ministry’s impact assessment on court fees as “not fit for purpose” in a rare red report. Just before Christmas, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee referred to several explanatory memorandums accompanying statutory instruments as “less than satisfactory”. Last week, the new Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), at last conceded that the number of mediations taking place was falling significantly, which was something that the Justice Secretary repeatedly denied.

In the case of the draft directive, I appreciate that, as with the other examples I cited, we got our corrections eventually, albeit not without a lot of digging. It took a strongly worded letter from the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee on 15 January to elicit some but not all the facts needed from the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), had to write to the Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to apologise for and reissue the defective explanatory memorandums. Can he offer some explanation for the poor quality of legislation, statistics, reasoning and clarity coming out of his Department? I suspect it is due in part to the swingeing cuts in staff and low morale, but there might be other reasons that he wishes to offer.

While we share some of the Commission’s concerns about the standards adopted by a number of EU countries regarding the matters dealt with by the draft directive, we do not think the directive is the route by which to correct them. We will not oppose the reasoned opinion, but we note that it is the European Scrutiny Committee, not the UK Government, that has led on the issue, and that does not bode well for sound governance.

22:03

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am glad to say that the two Front-Bench speeches have combined to encapsulate all the arguments. While I have some comments to make about the Government’s position, I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), because he drew out several of the European Scrutiny Committee’s concerns. I am sure that the Minister, having somewhat belatedly reached the conclusion that improvements were required, will acknowledge that, and that everyone will be satisfied, given that we are now considering a motion on forwarding a reasoned opinion.

As I pointed out in an intervention, for all the brickbats, congratulations and backslapping that might be coming from either side of the House, as things stand there is a more worrying matter to consider. If the Minister has received late information that more member states are prepared to deal with the matter properly, that would be useful for me, as Chairman of the Committee, to know. The hon. Member for Hammersmith rightly quoted the Committee as saying:

“It is difficult to overstate the significance of the Commission’s proposal.”

Against that background, and knowing the number of member states required for the yellow card procedure—we currently have the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, unless some others have come into the framework and I am not yet aware of that—there is clearly no prospect of this reasoned opinion receiving the kind of attention from other member states that it should receive. I say that because we still have a window in which to sort the matter out, but it is not a very long one, and I must say that it does not bode well given the significance of the issues at stake.

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

On that point, surely the Commission will not regard the Scottish Parliament’s submission as relevant to this matter. Surely only a submission from this Parliament will be regarded as relevant.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I rather agree with him. Whatever the aspirations of the Scottish nationalists and those campaigning for independence, I am afraid that at this juncture what they have to say, however worthy it may be, will not be within the criteria set out for reasoned opinions under the yellow card system.

I ought to say that I have had grave reservations about the yellow card system from the very beginning. I have never thought that it is a matter that should be decided by an aggregation of member states—if they choose number X, why not choose number Y? The fact is that if a member state wishes to act, in its own national interests—the Minister, judging by what he said, regards this as a matter of critical national interest—I suggest that the reason for disapplying or vetoing laws should rest with one member state, as my Committee’s report made clear, because it becomes invidious to choose a particular number rather than another.

The real question is whether the matter is sufficiently important in the interests of the democracies, the legislatures and the constitutional arrangements of a given country for there to be a veto. Indeed, I must commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who vetoed a treaty only a few months ago, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. For this purpose, I think that there is a very strong case, where it is sufficiently important in the national interest, to go beyond the yellow card system.

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

While my hon. Friend is talking about the yellow card system, is it not worth pointing out that the judge of whether the threshold is well enough argued once it has been met is the European Commission itself, so it ends up judging its own decision?

[Mr Cash]

My hon. Friend, as ever, is completely correct. In the case of the European public prosecutor, the threshold was actually exceeded, and what did the Commission do? It just said that it would go ahead anyway, with complete contempt for our Parliament and the others. That is really what is at stake in these circumstances. It is extremely disturbing. There is no need to enlarge that argument, so I will leave it at that.

We have had a fair description of what the measure is about from those on the Front Benches, so I will simply draw the House’s attention to the fact that, with regard to process, it is unreasonable to expect Parliament to come to an informed view on compliance with subsidiarity within the eight-week time frame allotted for issuing a reasoned opinion without the benefit of an analysis by the Government. The Minister, who may have been drawn into this somewhat at the last moment, would perhaps agree with that; I hope so.

Why was it only at the second time of asking, in a letter sent four days before this debate, that the Government gave a clearer indication of their view on subsidiarity? To put it bluntly, the Government have been prevaricating; they were not clear about their position until very recently. On the substance, however, I welcome the fact that in that letter the Government have belatedly accepted that

“a lack of evidence of necessity renders a proposal in breach of the subsidiarity principle”.

I would have thought that that was an unexceptional circumstance, but I nevertheless welcome it. I also welcome the fact that, given that the Government have accepted that the Commission has not complied with the procedural requirements placed on it to provide a detailed statement appraising compliance with subsidiarity, the Commission has agreed with the European Scrutiny Committee. We relied on both those arguments in our reasoned opinion, and we are therefore grateful and glad that the Minister has decided to support our proposal.

We note—I would be grateful if the Minister responded to this point—that the Government’s view is still conditional. There is a little bit of fudging going on. They use the phrase,

“if in principle the need were to be established”.

From what source—other than the impact assessment, which lacks the necessary evidence—do the Government think the Commission will be able to establish evidence of need? We also note that the Commission recognises that there is—believe it or not, in relation to a matter of this importance—

“limited statistical quantifiable evidence on insufficient mutual trust between the Member States”.

How, therefore, can there be the slightest justification for action at EU level? These are not mere words; they are about the application of the presumption of innocence in relation to EU law.

On a technical point, the legal base of article 82(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union specifically requires evidence of necessity to facilitate mutual recognition. On the difference between the approach to the European convention on human rights taken by the EU and by the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, I ask the Government to what extent they agree with the paragraph in the Commission’s impact assessment cited in the draft reasoned opinion, as follows:

“The ECtHR’s reluctance to lay down prescriptive requirements in these areas, which can be seen as a rationale for an EU measure. The approach of the ECtHR has not been especially activist in developing detailed and prescriptive rules in the area of Article 6(2) of the ECHR. It has left a margin of flexibility for presumption of innocence and related rights in light of the requirement to balance the fair trial rights of suspects”—

I know that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who is Chairman of the Justice Committee, will appreciate that—

“or accused persons with the general public interest, as well as the diverse legal traditions of Member States.”

The Committee concluded that not being “especially activist” was a trait that we strongly welcomed and should inform the decisions of any supra-national court.

We have produced our report and we are grateful that the Government have somewhat belatedly come to the right conclusions on this. We regret that it is only in the past few days that we have got fully engaged with this subject, but we are now glad that the reasoned opinion will go from this Parliament to the European Commission with the support of the sole Member on the Opposition Benches as personified by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. It is important that we do it, but what worries me is that it looks as though it will be doomed unless other member states come forward. If they are not as interested as we are in the matters raised by our Committee, that will be very sad for the European Union as a whole.

22:15

[Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I just want to add a few words to this conversation. I commend the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) for setting out so well the anxieties many of us will feel. It is not very long ago in our history that we were enormously proud of both our constitution and our legal system. It is, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, a common law system that covers Northern Ireland, England and Wales in our own domestic competence.

We should not ignore the simple fact that the legal system is an intimate facet of nationhood and the lines by which we govern ourselves. Ours has been a very long march to get where we are today. I think it was with Edward III—I have no doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong—that we started the separation of the judiciary from the monarchy, which led to the development of our judicial system. I think that is how most schoolboys of my generation understood its development.

The right to have a legal form that has withstood that number of centuries is not a casual thing. It is the most extensive, worldwide system of justice: one thinks of India, Australia, Canada, the United States and South Africa. It is a huge range, yet the way in which the Government have come to their conclusion confronts us with a clear loss of confidence in the very essence of what this Parliament is about and who we are. We cannot divorce ourselves from that tradition and one cannot accept that it will be swept aside by mandates from bureaucrats on the European continent. This is not an attack on them; it is an argument for confidence in our own constitution and legal system.

I believe, although some will disagree, that, by and large, the people of this country have confidence in our legal system and the fact that it will secure their liberty. The equal recognition of different judicial systems is a very alien concept. The rules and laws of Roman law and civic law are different from our laws. We do it case by case, and from that we found a tradition of what enforces the things that matter to this country—the defence of something absolutely essential to the development of our freedoms and liberty.

I wish the European Union well, but I do not think it should trespass into areas that are absolutely central to the sovereignty of the British people. That is why I am pleased that the report so assiduously crafted by the European Scrutiny Committee is central to this debate.

I have dealt in mere generality, but a profound concept is under attack. Our judicial system—the biggest and most important in the world—should not be subservient to a bureaucratic administrative system designated and designed elsewhere with the central purpose of consolidating the power of the European Union. That is why I am pleased that the Government have at last woken up to the very fact that this is about our law, our legal system, our freedoms, our independence and the right of the people of this country to determine what systems they should live under.

22:19

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

Let me start, Mr Speaker, by apologising for missing the Minister’s opening comments.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and the members of his Committee for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. It is yet another example of the fine work that they do in scrutinising and painstakingly going through the masses—hundreds and hundreds—of EU regulations and directives that emanate from Brussels to identify those that are worthy of consideration in debate on the Floor of the House.

This is such a measure and, frankly, it goes to the very heart of the British legal system—the presumption of innocence. Quite frankly, it is staggering that the EU should try to lecture this country. That is what it boils down to: the EU is trying to tell this country how to run its justice system, and trying to interfere with what we determine about the innocence of a subject until they are proven guilty in a court of law. This is just a further building block that the EU Commission sees as a stepping stone on its way to building an EU-wide common system of criminal justice, but it is one that we ought strenuously to oppose.

I am quite happy that we are being asked to approve the Government’s proposal to send a reasoned opinion back to Europe about why the measure fails the test of subsidiarity. In my mind, it certainly does fail that test, but like other hon. Members, I am extremely concerned that it appears that we will once again stand alone in our opposition to it. My understanding—I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether it is correct—is that the deadline for objections from member states is 12 February. If that is the case, there is very little time for this Parliament or any others to lodge objections. It therefore seems likely, although I wish it were not the case, that the measure will pass.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Does my hon. Friend take the comfort that I do from the Government’s firm stance, in that even if no other Parliament sends in a reasoned opinion against the proposal, it would be eccentric of the Government, because it is subject to our title 5 opt-out, to opt in to one that is thought not to meet the test of subsidiarity?

[Mr Nuttall]

Absolutely. I for one certainly hope that the Government will not feel that it is necessary to bow to the will of Brussels on this measure. Although I am at one and in accord with the Government on their proposal this evening, I would have to depart from that course if they tried in future to suggest that we should adopt it given that the European Commission seems likely to pursue it. Bearing in mind this country’s proud history of establishing our own system of common law and the rights of an individual to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, I see no reason why we need lecturing from the EU on this matter.

[Mr Cash]

Has my hon. Friend noticed that this matter has received almost no coverage in the media, particularly the BBC? Perhaps they will rectify that as a result of this debate. This is a serious matter and the British public must know what is going on, but there are limited opportunities for them to find out about it. If this proposal were in a Bill that dealt with the abolition of trial by jury, it would have to go through at least three stages in each House and would be subject to amendments in both Houses. Because it is in a directive, all we are left with is putting up a reasoned amendment that will be doomed if other member states disagree.

[Mr Nuttall]

The Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, as ever on these matters, is right. This proposal has not received adequate scrutiny in the media. There may be many reasons for that.

This is another example of the EU interfering in matters that are a million miles away from the areas that the vast majority of the British people want us and our European neighbours to deal with. The British people want us have free trade with our European neighbours; they do not want the European Union to interfere in matters of criminal justice. This is just one example of why, when it comes to a referendum, I believe that millions of my fellow citizens will agree with me that we would be better off out of the European Union and that we should simply trade with our European neighbours on a free trade basis.

22:26

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to the Members who have contributed to this debate. It is good to see that there is agreement, because often there is not on this subject.

I made it clear at the outset that this was a matter for the House and that the Government were facilitating its consideration. Members have said loudly and clearly that they support the reasoned opinion of the European Scrutiny Committee and its submission to the European Union institutions.

I will address some of the points that have been raised by Members. When the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) spoke, he had no support from the Opposition Benches. However, he has a reputation for more than making up for that through his use of words. He did that today, as he always does. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for their contributions.

I want to respond to the point that was made about the explanatory memorandums that were submitted. Five instruments were received at the outset, which was a lot of information. We tried to supply the House with as much information as possible within the time constraints that were on us. We provided the explanatory memorandums and there was criticism of them. Letters were passed between the European Scrutiny Committee and the Department. We subsequently provided further information. The Justice Secretary has apologised for the delay and given an assurance that we will try to provide more full and more timely responses in future. I have no hesitation in reiterating that apology.

The red card system is difficult to use in practice because Parliament cannot simply rid the UK of its obligations. Under the European Communities Act 1972, as the law stands we cannot pick and choose which EU law to implement beyond the terms of our opt-in for justice and home affairs matters.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Is it not open to the House to amend the 1972 Act?

[Mr Vara]

Given the Prime Minister’s assurance that we will try to renegotiate a whole series of measures, I think the best way forward is to have that engagement with the European Union, get a series of proposals, and then go to the country for people to have the final say. The 1972 Act has existed for a long time, and there is not long to go from now.

[Mr Cash]

I am bound to point out that the 1972 Act was passed in pursuance of the 1971 White Paper. The 1972 Act itself has not changed materially, but the number of functions and the invasion of the United Kingdom legislature has continued inexorably since then. That 1971 White Paper specifically guaranteed—and therefore that guarantee would seem still to be valid—that we would never give up the veto because it was in our vital national interest. To do otherwise would endanger the fabric of the European Union, which appears to be doing a very good job of destroying itself.

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I repeat that there is not long to go. If there is a Conservative victory, we will renegotiate, and the issues that he raises, as well as a whole series of other issues, will be put to the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills talked about the European Union trespassing into matters that have been so important to our judicial system over centuries, and I could not agree with him more. As always, he was passionate about what he said, and almost—no, not almost, I think everyone in this Chamber is in agreement about the presumption of innocence, which has existed since Roman times. The case for the directive simply has not been made by the Commission.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North also mentioned the tight deadline of 12 March. I am reliably informed that the date that is important is the date when the reasoned opinion is actually sent, so if it is approved today and sent immediately, it will be valid and we will have met the deadline. He also mentioned the opt-in. He said that he was not present at the start of my speech and it may be that he missed my comments, but the Government have promised a debate on that specific issue in due course.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful for that confirmation but I wonder whether the Minister misspoke. He said 12 March. Did he mean 12 March or 12 February?

[Mr Vara]

I did indeed mean 12 February and my hon. Friend is right to pick me up on that.

This is an opportunity for the House to make it clear to the Commission that it should listen to the views of national Parliaments. I can only repeat the wish that the European Commission listen carefully to and treat with respect the concerns of this House and any other national Chambers that express a view on this important subject. That is required by the treaties, it is political good sense, and it would be an important demonstration that the Commission is indeed listening to the views of elected representatives and member states.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House considers that the Draft Directive on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at trial in criminal proceedings (European Union Document No. 17621/13 and Addenda 1 to 3) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Thirty-second Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xxix); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

Business without Debate

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Road Traffic

That the draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 16 December 2013, be approved. —(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 18 December 2013, be approved. —(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

EU Support for Governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo

That this House takes note of Unnumbered European Union Document, the European Court of Auditors Special Report No. 9/2013–EU support for governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo; welcomes the Report as an important assessment of the management of EU funds which will help to ensure effectiveness; and supports the Government’s efforts in encouraging the European Commission to address the weaknesses identified in the Report to ensure improved governance programmes in the Democratic Republic of Congo.—(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

Business of the House (12 February)

Ordered,

That at the sitting on Wednesday 12 February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on–

(1) the Motion in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to the Police Grant Report not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion, and

(2) the Motions in the name of Secretary Eric Pickles relating to Local Government Finance not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on that Motion or six hours after the commencement of proceedings relating to Police Grant Report, whichever is the later; proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. —(Gavin Barwell.)

Rural Bus Services (North Yorkshire)

Monday 10th February 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gavin Barwell.)

22:35

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

I am delighted to have secured the debate. “The wheels on the bus go round and round” is a well known expression and I hope our bus service continues.

I should say something about the history and context of the debate. Free bus passes were started in the late 1990s under the previous Government. Initially, they were provided locally for concessionary fares, but then went national. As many hon. Members will remember, the problem was that they were not adequately funded. When they were initially rolled out locally, North Yorkshire county council and other shire counties could support them, but when the free passes for concessionary travel were rolled out nationally, there was a problem for Scarborough borough, including the ward of Filey, which is in my current constituency, and the Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency. Notably, they are leisure destinations in their own right and attracted far more visitors than we had ever bargained for.

In my view, North Yorkshire county council is acting entirely properly and responsibly in that regard, but it faces a double challenge. The first challenge is that the bus subsidy is being reduced, and the second is that it faces the national Government austerity programme. Government Members support that, but the grant to local councils is being reduced by it.

I should like to come up with a solution to the problem and put a question to my hon. Friend the Minister, my distinguished constituency neighbour. Obviously, those to whom I have spoken in the Ryedale forum for older people, in the Filey and Hertford parts of Scarborough borough council that I represent, and those living in Thirsk and Easingwold and the parts of Hambleton district council that I represent, believe that there is no point having the free bus pass if there is no bus for them to take. I believe that the way forward is to put concessionary travel by bus on the same legal footing as travel by rail. That would allow concessionary travel to continue, but enable those who wish to avail themselves of the concessionary fares to pay a contribution.

My understanding is that concessionary rail travellers can and do pay a contribution towards the fare, whereas bus travellers on concessionary fares will not be permitted to make a contribution, and we risk losing the service. The proposed reduction of bus services is causing great anxiety, particularly among the elderly and less mobile passengers. Buses provide a lifeline to constituents in rural communities, with many relying on those essential services to access their work—people living in rural communities often work in the towns. The elderly and more vulnerable rely on the bus services to access vital services such as doctors, hospitals and shops.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her fine speech. By making repeated cuts to services—there have been repeated cuts to the 401 service from Selby to Goole in recent years—we make the routes unsustainable in the longer term. The Selby to Goole route is important for local students, but the more services are cut, the less attractive they are to use.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I hope that the Minister and North Yorkshire county council have heard it.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, and older people at many of my surgeries have offered to pay for bus travel. I demur slightly in that I believe that North Yorkshire county council could have consulted much more with the communities of which she talks. I urge her to urge the council to talk more to the people.

[Miss McIntosh]

My hon. Friend has a point. I have been copied in to correspondence with East Ayton parish council, representing the Saxton area, which felt that consultation was insufficient and that that led to the decision that was taken being flawed. The parish council says:

“These bus services are vital to both Parishes”—

of East Ayton and West Ayton—

“and are crucial to ensure that there is no isolation for those who are elderly and infirm.”

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

My hon. Friend has made a powerful point about how important bus services are for the elderly and more vulnerable in our community in rural areas. North Yorkshire has a great rural presence, but it is not entirely rural. Buses are important in towns too, and I wonder whether we can broaden the debate to include all of our county.

[Miss McIntosh]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I used to represent a small part of his constituency, and I know how dependent the people there were on accessing Harrogate town.

In Filey, Mike Cockerill, an independent councillor, is on the record as saying that he is especially concerned by the proposal to withdraw the existing Filey town service on both the Sycamore and Wharfedale routes. The county proposes to have a dial-a-ride service, but the problem with that is that it is not practical for collecting passengers and dropping them off around towns such as Filey, Harrogate and others. Dial-a-ride services are far more expensive and are generally meant for trips from A to B, rather than town tour-type journeys. The operator of that service, Olympic Coaches, is well liked and respected and goes the extra mile. If a regular passenger does not turn up, the operator will dismount from the bus and call on the resident—often elderly—to check that they have not been taken ill. They also take time to assist people with their shopping bags when they board and disembark, even taking the shopping to the passengers’ front doors if they are not able to carry it.

The routes are used by 3,500 local residents every month, so they have a substantial uptake. Without the rural bus services serving towns such as Thirsk, Easingwold, Malton, Pickering, Filey and many other smaller towns and villages, those residents will be disconnected from their rural hinterlands.

I welcome the fact that North Yorkshire county council’s scrutiny committee took the opportunity to review its decision to reduce the services after several councillors called it in. As a result, I understand that a task force will be set up to look at the cuts that have been agreed— £1.7 million from a total budget of £4.4 million.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important Adjournment debate. The bus services are really important in a county such as North Yorkshire, and we all have communities that will be affected by the proposed cuts. She makes a sensible suggestion about those pensioners who can afford to pay for their travel.

My concern, which is shared by some of my constituents, is about North Yorkshire county council’s priorities. My hon. Friend has just mentioned the size of the cuts, but the council spends—I believe—almost £250,000 on salaries for union representatives. It seems to think that it is okay to spend that on salaries for union reps, but it would go a long way to saving some of these rural bus services.

[Miss McIntosh]

The problem is that in every other respect, the county council has behaved very responsibly. It has pared back library services. Many of us visited local libraries on Saturday and through the week to celebrate the services provided. My hon. Friend might like to secure his own Adjournment debate to pursue the valid points he makes, and which need to be looked at in greater detail.

I personally welcome the leadership given by County Councillor David Jeffels. The county council has set up a task group that will meet for the first time a week today, on Monday 17 February. It will look at ideas, including—I hope that in summing up the debate the Minister will give us some creature comfort here—looking at the Department for Transport’s £78.5 million for local sustainable transport, the possibility of using the new homes bonus money through the district and borough councils, the dial-a-ride that I mentioned, community transport and car sharing. It is incumbent on all county councils facing cuts to try to provide solutions and share best practice.

I would like to draw the strands together by saying that those of us who live in and represent rural communities need to ensure that we do not have a significantly worse service than those living in urban conurbations across the Yorkshire region; that young people who do not have their own transport are able to access buses to get to work; and that the elderly and less mobile can continue to access the rural bus network to go to the doctor, the dentist and the hospital. I have been given a very clear message, particularly by the Ryedale forum for older people and those I have met in Filey, Thirsk, Easingwold and across the piece, that they do not want to lose the service. They want to be in a position to continue to enjoy a concessionary fare, but pay something towards keeping the bus service running.

I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will take the opportunity to ask why bus passengers are treated on a different legal basis from railway passengers. Is there some way forward that would help North Yorkshire county council to make the savings we know we have to make, but allow the bus service passengers living in rural areas—and semi-rural areas like Harrogate—to continue to enjoy the current level of service?

I pay tribute to the commercial bus operators who, in Selby, Ripon, the villages in outer York, Goole and the outskirts of Harrogate, operate an outstanding service. The services are currently operated by commercial bus operators, with a bus subsidy administered by North Yorkshire county council. I believe that what I am proposing this evening is a solution that is perfectly legal and will allow the service to continue to be enjoyed by all bus users currently living in rural North Yorkshire.

22:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. Buses play a vital role in our economy. More than 2.2 billion bus journeys were made on local buses in England, outside London, in 2012-13. Buses are essential for many people to get to work, to education, to doctors and to hospitals, as my hon. Friend remarked. For many, particularly those in rural areas, the bus is a lifeline and without it they would not be able to access those essential services or go shopping and socialise.

Over half of those who rely on buses outside London do not have access to a car. Customer satisfaction with bus journeys is high—84% are satisfied with their service—and under-21s make up a third of bus passengers, while use among the over-60s is increasing as a result of the national concessionary pass. Furthermore, a recent study by the university of Leeds has reinforced the importance of buses to a healthy, growing economy.

The Government remain committed to improving bus services, and expenditure on buses reflects that: this year, we will spend more than £1 billion on the concessionary travel entitlement and more than £340 million in direct subsidies to bus operators in England; more than £300 million has been allocated to funding major bus projects in the past year; and outside London 42% of the money that goes to bus operators comes from the taxpayer by one mechanism or another. We have provided £70 million through the better bus areas fund to deliver improvements in 24 local authority areas and £20 million to support community transport.

In addition, many bus improvement schemes have been funded as part of the Government’s £600 million local sustainable transport fund, while a total of £95 million has been provided for four rounds of the green bus fund to improve environmental performance. All this demonstrates our commitment. Moreover, as a local North Yorkshire MP, I am pleased that North Yorkshire county council has received more than £5 million in local sustainable transport funding in 2012-15, including for bus improvements in Harrogate and Knaresborough and to boost tourism in Whitby and the Esk valley.

My hon. Friend made the point that initially, when the concessionary scheme was introduced, boroughs such as mine in Scarborough and other popular tourist hotspots felt they were being unfairly treated because they were paying for journeys that started in their area. People going from Leeds or Hull to places such as Scarborough, Malton or Kirbymoorside found that although the council in Hull paid for the journey to the resort, the council in the resort paid for the return journey. The situation has been a lot better since we moved to county-level funding, however, as it means that journeys within North Yorkshire are paid for by North Yorkshire county council.

The central question posed by my hon. Friend was, should pensioners be charged to use their concessionary passes? I believe that this would undermine the basic principle of the concessionary scheme, and many would probably see it as a step too far. Were any Labour Members present for this important Adjournment debate, I believe they would also underline how the principle of the concessionary scheme should be written in stone, not undermined.

[Nigel Adams]

Has the Minister assessed the cost of means-testing to see who can afford to pay?

[Mr Goodwill]

As with other benefits, such as the free television licence and the winter fuel allowance, it would be prohibitively expensive to means-test people. Also, if people had to apply for the pass, as with other means-tested pensioner benefits, we might find a much lower uptake.

[Miss McIntosh]

My central argument is that if it works for rail passengers—they buy a concessionary rail card and get the concessionary travel—why can it not work for bus passengers? I have been led to believe that it cannot work because the law prevents it, so I am asking the Government to change the law. It need not be means-tested—it is not means-tested for rail passengers. We just need to put rail and bus passengers on an equal footing—problem solved.

[Mr Goodwill]

I recently attended a meeting of my own older people’s forum in Scarborough, and the very same suggestion was made. People said, “We’ve got these bus passes, but what’s the point, if there’s no bus to use. We’d be prepared to pay a nominal charge to use some of these services, if we could retain them.” However, that would require a fundamental change to the way the system works, and it could be the thin end of the wedge, as services up and down the country—not just the ones that needed help to survive, but some of the more commercial ones—might also demand payment. It would change fundamentally the whole basis of the concessionary scheme. We do not at present have a scheme of free travel for pensioners on the railways. The discount available to pensioners or the railcards they can use are something completely different.

Some of the other services, such as the 118 from Filey to Scarborough via Flixton, have three or fewer passengers, so even if we charged passengers an additional £1 to use their passes on those journeys, that would mean only £3 on some of them. Indeed, some of the services in North Yorkshire have no passengers at all. We need to be more intelligent in the way we approach this. For example, the intention is for the F1 and F2 in Filey to be dial-a-ride services to replace the buses. Indeed, there is a successful dial-a-ride service in my constituency which, let us not forget, picks the pensioners up from their homes and takes them to where they need to go. Many people with mobility problems therefore find dial-a-ride to be a superior service to the bus, which requires them to get to a bus stop and wait, often in inclement weather.

Similarly, the 195 from Hovingham to Helmsley via Ampleforth will be reduced to three days a week, running only on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays, but again, that service currently carries only three or fewer passengers on some of its journeys. Interestingly, I had a telephone call last year from one of my constituents in Sleights—a lady who was a pensioner—who was concerned that the bus service there would be changed and would no longer be adequate. I asked how often she used it and she said, “Well, I don’t use the service myself—I’ve got a car—but the day may come when I do need a service and I’d like it to be there.” There is therefore, to a degree, an aspiration or wish to have a service in case of emergencies or if that person can no longer drive. However, may I suggest that it is not the job of the taxpayer to subsidise a service in case people might want to use it one day?

[Julian Smith]

Does the Minister agree that this is a difficult matter for schools such as Upper Wharfedale and Nidderdale High, which rely on children being sent by parents who are out of the catchment area? Public subsidy is needed for those parents and children, yet the council is ripping those services and that subsidy away, causing big trouble for those highly rural schools.

[Mr Goodwill]

I am aware that that is a problem. Indeed, the problem becomes more acute where there are no spare places on the school bus service, so that those who do not qualify for access to the free bus service—whether they be sixth-formers or people coming from out-of-catchment—find they cannot get on the school bus even if they want to pay. Therefore, cuts to services, particularly those early in the morning or in the evening, can be a problem.

[Miss McIntosh]

As my hon. Friend knows, Welburn school falls into that category—the bus passes it, but people are not allowed to access it. Has the Department made a comparative assessment of the cost of dial-a-ride, which I understand is much more expensive than the current Filey service? As we have established that there has been a lack of consultation, would it not make sense to sit down with the residents and see which we need to keep and which we can dispense with?

[Mr Goodwill]

As I understand it, North Yorkshire council has been conducting an extensive consultation and also has the ridership figures. I have looked at some of the figures for some of the services, and one of the big problems is that services are being provided that are not being used by large numbers of people. I understand that North Yorkshire is keen to maintain some sort of service wherever possible, so there might be alternative routes to use or the frequency of some services might be reduced. In one or two cases in Ripon, the operator has considered that it is able to continue to provide a service without subsidy.

The Government also recognise that improvements can and must be made. In March 2012, our “Green Light for Better Buses” paper set out our plan for buses. The proposals include reforming bus subsidy, improving competition, incentivising partnership working and multi-operator ticketing, and making access to bus information and ticketing easier for all. There is no doubt that we are all operating in challenging economic times. The Government want to ensure that the bus market is still attractive to all operators, large and small, urban and rural, by ensuring that funding is allocated in the fairest way, while giving the best value for money to taxpayers.

The bus service operators grant, or BSOG, paid to bus operators, has been provided directly to them in a fairly blunt and untargeted way, relating to fuel consumption. We need to be more intelligent in the way we target some of the support we are giving. Some local authorities have told us that they can make bus subsidy deliver better value for money by working in partnership with their bus operators to grow the bus market. That is what the five better bus areas are intended to do, and the top-up fund available to them will give them an additional incentive to innovate. One of the trailblazers is York. I will watch its progress with interest. I think Bristol would be a good comparator for rural North Yorkshire, given that the Bristol better bus area has a rural hinterland more similar to parts of North Yorkshire.

The policy relies strongly on partnership with commercial bus operators rather than contractual relationships, which is why better bus areas are quite distinct from quality contract schemes, in which all bus services would be tendered and the bus service operators grant automatically devolved to local authorities.

The Government are committed to protecting the national bus travel concession, which is of huge benefit to about 11 million people, allowing free off-peak local travel anywhere in England. The concession gives older and disabled people greater freedom, more independence and a lifeline to their communities, gives them access to facilities in their areas, and helps them to keep in touch with family and friends. It can also bring wider benefits to the economy. The Government recognise that the issue of young people’s travel and the level of fares is a complex one, but, although there is no statutory obligation to provide discount-price travel for young people, many commercial and publicly funded reductions are available.

Bus services in rural areas are not just concerned with levels of public funding. Commercial operators will provide services in areas where there are enough passengers, and overall commercial mileage in very rural areas of England is increasing. However, the Government accept that when that is not feasible, local authorities play a vital role in supporting rural bus services. Indeed, about 28% of bus mileage in predominately rural authorities is operated under contract to them. Authorities such as North Yorkshire county council are best placed to decide what support to provide, in response to local views and need and in the light of their overall funding priorities. It is therefore vital for them to maximise the return on every penny of the funding that they provide. To help with that, in October last year my Department met its commitment to publish revised guidance for local authorities on best practice in the procurement of local bus services and other types of road passenger transport. While I recognise that much innovation and hard work is done by councils all over the country, I believe that there is scope for them to do more, not least by highlighting and sharing some really good practice on which other authorities can draw—and I strongly urge them to do so.

Providing bus transport solutions in rural areas also requires effective use of all available options, whether they be traditional fixed-route bus services, community buses, dial-a-ride, or other types of demand-responsive transport such as taxis. My Department is currently undertaking further work in examining the barriers to better procurement of such services.

[Julian Smith]

May I urge the Minister and the Department to analyse the performance of organisations, such as the Dales Integrated Transport Alliance in my constituency, which have been given grants as part of the local sustainability fund, which he mentioned, and to think about whether they have provided value for money?

[Mr Goodwill]

That is exactly the point that I was trying to make when I spoke of sharing best practice and assessing the effectiveness with which different local authorities have deployed the funds that they have been given

The Government believe in buses. Our vision is of a “'better bus” with more of what passengers want: punctual, interconnected services; greener and more fully wheelchair-accessible buses; and widely available smart ticketing. A more attractive, more competitive and greener bus network will encourage more passengers, cut carbon and create growth.

Question put and agreed to.

23:03

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 10th February 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 10 February 2014

Planning Permission: Hampshire

Monday 10th February 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Mike Hancock]

To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many planning appeals have resulted in local authority decisions being overturned by the planning inspector in (a) Portsmouth South constituency and (b) Hampshire in each of the last five years.

[Official Report, 17 December 2013, Vol. 572, c. 571W.]

Letter of correction from Nick Boles:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) on 17 December 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Nick Boles]

Planning is a quasi-judicial process; it is a long-standing feature of the planning system that there is a right of appeal, just as there are with other local quasi-judicial decisions such as on licensing applications, gambling applications or parking fines.

Since January 2008 there have been 83,507 Planning Appeal decisions for Portsmouth and 1,169,098 for the whole of Hampshire. An analysis of decisions by individual constituencies, such as Portsmouth South, is not available.

[Nick Boles]

Planning is a quasi-judicial process; it is a long-standing feature of the planning system that there is a right of appeal, just as there are with other local quasi-judicial decisions such as on licensing applications, gambling applications or parking fines.

Since April 2008 there have been 140 Planning Appeal decisions for Portsmouth and 2,954 for the whole of Hampshire. An analysis of decisions by individual constituencies, such as Portsmouth South, is not available.

Written Statements

Monday 10th February 2014 Written Statements

Monday 10 February 2014

Offtaker of Last Resort

Monday 10th February 2014 Written Statements

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

I can announce that we intend to publish before recess a consultation on the Government’s proposal for an offtaker of last resort mechanism, which will support investment in independent renewable electricity projects.

This Government are committed to delivering greener energy at least cost, as well as ensuring ongoing security of electricity supplies. The Government’s electricity market reform (EMR) programme provides an ambitious package of measures to incentivise the investment needed to replace the UK’s ageing electricity infrastructure with a more diverse and low-carbon energy mix. Up to £110 billion of capital investment is needed from now until the end of the decade. The Government’s objectives for EMR are to: ensure a secure electricity supply; ensure sufficient investment in sustainable low-carbon technologies; and minimise costs to, and ensure value for money for consumers.



It is imperative that independent renewable generators are able to access the energy market and help deliver this goal. The offtaker of last resort will be vital to improve the route-to-market options for such generators, which will help unlock a significant pipeline of projects and bring essential competition, diversity and innovation to the market.

The offtaker of last resort will provide eligible renewable electricity generators with a guaranteed “backstop” route-to-market at a specified discount to the market price.

The document published will outline all the key design details for the offtaker of last resort mechanism and will be accessible at: www.decc.gov.uk. I will also be depositing copies of the consultation document in the Libraries of both Houses.

Renewables Obligation

Monday 10th February 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

The Government consulted on the transition from the renewables obligation (RO) to the contract for difference (CfD) between 17 July and 26 September 2013. Following analysis of responses, we then carried out a further more detailed consultation between 7 and 28 November 2013 on the arrangements for grace periods at the RO closure date. A combined Government response to both consultations will be published later this month.

The Renewables Obligation (Amendment) Order 2014 laid in draft in Parliament today will implement a large part of the outcome of the consultation on the RO transition. In particular, this order will:

a. prevent duplication of support between the renewables obligation and the investment contracts and contracts for difference provided for under part 2 of the Energy Act 2013;

b. establish procedures under the renewables obligation for the exercise of the choice of support in certain circumstances between the renewables obligation or the investment contracts and contracts for difference.

The same order includes provisions on biomass sustainability, which implement part of the Government response (full name and publication date). It is intended to bring the biomass sustainability provisions into force by 1 April in time for the start of the next RO “obligation period” (1 April-31 March). For this reason. Government are laying this amending order in advance of publication of the combined Government response to the RO transition and grace period consultations. The RO transition policy decisions implemented by this order are set out below.

The choice of scheme available to new renewable generating stations and to additional capacity at existing RO generating stations will take place at the point of a project’s application for either the RO or CfD or at the point of signature of an investment contract. This policy remains in line with the RO transition consultation.

To ensure that no one project can receive support from both schemes for the same renewable electricity, developers applying for the RO will be required to provide a self-declaration which will then be subject to verification via data-sharing between national grid as the CfD delivery body, and Ofgem as RO operator. This policy has been adjusted from that proposed within the original consultation in response to respondents’ statements that the previous proposals would constitute an excessive administrative burden on renewable generators.

The choice of scheme for additional capacity at RO-accredited stations means that it will be possible for one generating station to have some capacity receiving support from the RO for its electricity generation, and some separate capacity receiving support under a CfD for its electricity generation. To ensure that no electricity generation can receive support under both schemes, and to prevent developers from switching generation between schemes in response to price fluctuations, net electricity generation and fuel usage in the RO and CfD schemes at these stations will be kept distinct and separate. This policy has also been adjusted slightly in response to consultation responses; the arrangements for metering input electricity will allow pro-rata formulae under certain circumstances, in recognition of the fact that some forms of input electricity are impossible to meter separately.

RO-accredited biomass co-firing stations will have the option of applying for a CfD as biomass conversions, in order to incentivise such stations to increase their overall renewable electricity generation. Such stations also had the option of applying for an investment contract under FID enabling for renewables, while applications for that process were open. This policy remains as set out in the RO transition consultation.

Offshore wind projects which are already accredited within the RO, and which are registering wind turbines in phases under RO phasing arrangements, will be able to transfer some or all of their unregistered wind turbines to a CfD, if successful in a CfD application. This provides maximum flexibility and minimises the risk of an investment hiatus for offshore stations at the present time. This policy remains as set out in the RO transition consultation.

No other stations or capacity within the RO will be entitled to leave the RO in order to apply for a CfD, as this would undermine the overall operation of the RO, which is a market-based mechanism.

These policies received the support of a majority of respondents to the RO transition consultation. Further detail will be provided in the Government response to be published later this month, along with full information on the RO transition and grace period policies not implemented by the amending order.

Grand Committee

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Monday, 10 February 2014.

00:00

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, as is usual on these occasions, before we start proceedings, I must advise that if there is a Division in the House—I think it is unlikely—the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:30

Moved by

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.

Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, the regulations amend the Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012. The draft regulations have been approved in the other place and, if approved by this House after consideration by the Grand Committee, would come into effect at the end of February. The regulations clarify how local planning authorities should calculate the level of fees payable for proposals for oil and gas extraction.

The coalition Government believe that shale gas has the potential to provide the UK with greater energy security, growth and jobs. We are creating a framework that will accelerate shale gas in a responsible, safe and sustainable way. We have a robust regulatory regime in place, which is grounded in an effective, locally led planning system. That is why local authorities—county councils and unitary authorities in this case—have the responsibility for determining planning applications. They take decisions in accordance with local plans and the National Planning Policy Framework. I want to be clear that this amendment is intended to clarify only one particular point of law.

Departmental guidance going back to 1992 makes clear the Government’s long-standing intention that, for oil and gas applications, fees should be calculated on the basis of the area of the surface works. This is also a practice that has been employed by authorities for many years. Planning authorities have regarded the application boundary of a site by reference to the surface area and charged a fee accordingly. However, the fee regulations themselves refer to the,

“land to which the application relates”—

in other words, the extent of development, including underground works.

Until relatively recently, the tension between the regulations and the guidance has not been an issue in practice. Traditionally, onshore oil and gas development has involved vertical drilling. It is only with the advent of horizontal drilling, including the prospect of hydraulic fracturing of shale, that we have become aware of questions on this issue from the sector and local authorities in recent months. As paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum points out, there are instances in which this alternative interpretation has been adopted. The simple purpose of the regulations is to clarify the law beyond doubt. Therefore, Regulation 2 provides that a fee is not payable for any part of an oil and gas development that takes place underground if there is no oil and gas development on the surface directly above the operations.

We also recognise the confusion and uncertainty over how to interpret the term,

“land to which the application relates”,

when providing information on oil and gas applications, especially on how to show this on a map. Our national planning policy guidance, which will be published in due course, will address this. Applicants will be expected to indicate the horizontal extent of drilling, although this will not affect what they are charged. It is important to understand the likely extent of the proposed development. For example, planning authorities need to know to publicise the applications in relation to the larger area. It is also essential that the planning permission indicates where the underground development is allowed to take place. This is necessary to ensure effective monitoring and enforcement of planning conditions.

We are also taking this opportunity to increase the fees for applications for oil and gas development. As part of our consultation last year, the UK onshore oil and gas industry, which represents the majority of onshore operators, offered to increase the level of fees by 10%. It did so because it recognised that applications for oil and gas extraction, especially shale gas, may be subject to increased public scrutiny. Therefore Regulation 3 provides for application fees to rise by an above-average increase of 10% for all oil and gas applications. Let me be clear, however, that this is not a 10% increase across all categories of development. It affects only applications for oil and gas.

I should now like to address the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It expressed concern at the lack of time for effective scrutiny of these regulations, as well as the others that were introduced last month. There has been an exchange of correspondence between my department and the committee, and that has been published by the committee. As noble Lords will see from that document, it relates to both today’s regulations and another set of regulations, which are not before us today.

We fully recognise the importance of providing Parliament with sufficient time to scrutinise statutory instruments. We were working to issue the supporting material—the impact assessment and the summary of consultation responses—alongside the statutory instrument before Christmas. However, there was a longer delay than we anticipated in doing so. I am sorry that the scrutiny committee was inconvenienced in this way. It was never our intention to impact on Parliament's consideration of these instruments. However, I am grateful that it was still able to consider the statutory instruments last month.

The scrutiny committee also expressed concern that the department had not systematically evaluated the financial impact on the public sector of the new arrangements. This is even though we acknowledge that applications might be subject to increased public scrutiny, and so the costs to planning authorities of handling them might increase.

The level of fees is not set by examining the cost of processing each type of development in isolation. The fee is based on the average cost of determination across all local authorities in England. These regulations will affect an average of 32 applications per year. That is 32 out of more than 450,000 received by planning authorities in England each year. It is wholly disproportionate to carry out a detailed financial analysis in such circumstances.

We set out our assessment of the changes to these regulations in the impact assessment for the other statutory instrument. Fees are outside the scope of the Government's “one in, two out” procedure for better regulation. However, that does not mean that we do not take seriously the impact on planning authorities that have to handle such applications. We have concluded that there will be a small positive impact. This is based on the Government's intention for how fees should be calculated, as well as the past practice employed by many planning authorities. We must also not forget that planning fees for oil and gas development are already higher than the average fee.

The scrutiny committee also asked why the Government are keen to progress with these changes when there is such a degree of opposition, and after what it perceived as a relatively short period of consultation. I can assure noble Lords that we carefully considered the nature and impact of these proposals when considering the length of time for consultation on the draft regulations. Our consultation period was in line with the revised Cabinet Office consultation principles, which we support and follow. We also carefully considered the responses before pressing ahead with our proposals. Of course, these proposals do not just cover shale, they also cover other oil and gas extraction.

While some local planning authorities might not welcome this proposal, since it could deprive them of an opportunity to raise more income through the planning system, the point is that the statutory planning functions are not just financed through the fees which are set; they are also subsidised by government grant and local raised revenue.

It is important for me to stress that these regulations simply clarify the Government’s long-standing intentions by seeking to clarify the level of fees for onshore oil and gas operators. They will provide clarity for investors, local authorities and local communities alike, and the modest fee increase we have set will help planning authorities to meet the costs of these applications. We have responded to the committee, and our response and the committee’s letter to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have been published and are available. I commend these regulations to the Grand Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As noble Lords have already heard, the committee has had considerable reservations about the way in which these regulations have been processed. During my public service career I have generally taken the view that when things go wrong it is the result of incompetence rather than malign conspiracy, but I have to say that the way in which this has been handled may cause me to revisit my position.

Let us revisit the facts from a slightly different perspective from the one we have already heard. The original consultation took place in September and October and allowed just six weeks for responses. The Government’s own new consultation principles, which were published in July 2012 and have not been without controversy, provide:

“For a new and contentious policy”—

such as a new policy on nuclear energy—

“12 weeks or more may still be appropriate”.

As the chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, streamlining procedures in relation to fracking might very well be seen as a new and contentious policy. Given that the Government allowed only six weeks for this consultation, it is hard to imagine what policy considerations might lead them to allow 12 weeks or longer for other consultations.

Let us carry on with the story. The regulations were laid on 20 December last year; that is, during the parliamentary Recess and a day or two before most of us were involved in other festivities. They were brought into force on 13 January this year, just one week after the end of the Recess. As the chairman of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, pointed out in a letter to the Minister, Mr Nick Boles, clearly this gave,

“scant opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise the instrument before it took effect”,

which, given that this is a controversial issue, was especially “regrettable”. The fact that it applies to only a small number of planning applications each year does not change the fact that this is a controversial issue.

To make things worse, as the Minister herself has said, the department failed to publish a detailed analysis of the consultation responses or any impact assessment when the instruments were ultimately laid. Therefore, such scrutiny as Parliament was able to provide was not informed by this important material. The committee pressed for this but it was not provided until 24 January, a full month after the instruments were laid. It showed that only seven of the responses were in favour of the Government’s proposed changes and 155 were against. I am not making points about the content of the regulations—others may want to—but it is right that Parliament should know the outcome of the consultation when the instruments were laid.

When these concerns were put to the Minister, Mr Boles, by the chairman of the committee, the response was close to dismissive. The department does, it seems, support and adhere to the revised Cabinet Office guidelines but, on the advice of its own deregulation unit, felt that the six weeks allowed in this case was proportionate. As for laying the instruments just before Christmas and without the necessary supporting material, we were to be reassured that there was no intent to impact on Parliament’s consideration of them.

I think that the way in which this has been managed is regrettable. It has shown scant respect for Parliament and scant respect for effective consultation, which is an important cornerstone of our democratic system. I hope that the Minister, in addition to the assurances that she has already given us, will be able to offer some greater reassurance than did Mr Boles that this sort of thing will not be allowed to happen again. There may not be many people here to hear this debate today, but these issues go to the heart of our constitutional process.

15:45

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, there are not many people here, but this issue is incredibly topical, particularly given that Cuadrilla announced last week that it intends to apply for planning permission for two new sites in Lancashire for fracking. As the noble Lord mentioned, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered this statutory instrument alongside another one, which would amend the requirements for applicants to notify owners and tenants of land individually of applications for such development. I shall not repeat the apposite and pertinent comments that the noble Lord has made—I echo them entirely—but shall pick up on one of them and make one further, final remark.

As he said, the Government failed to publish a detailed analysis of the consultation when they laid these instruments before Parliament. That reluctance is probably understandable when we look in detail at that analysis. As the noble Lord said, only seven of those responses were in favour, with 155 against. That is really important, and not just in terms of how we take forward the issue of fracking; it is about how we have a process for planning that involves the local community. The broader principles of what planning is for were debated at length by many of us in this House in the context of the Localism Bill and the National Planning Policy Framework. It is to be deeply regretted that the views then expressed about what the purpose of the planning system should be—it is about balancing the competing demands to achieve truly sustainable development for our country—appear not to have been heeded.

I am particularly grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for highlighting the shortcomings in the Government’s procedure on this matter. It highlighted to those of us in this House who care deeply about ensuring that we have a fair planning process that we will have to watch developments even more closely in future. Again, this is particularly topical, given that it is likely that there will be announcements in Europe this month about the future of GM crops. It will be interesting to note what the department might be planning for in terms of applications in that new area of development.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. As we have heard, they are concerned with planning arrangements for onshore operations for the winning and working of oil or natural gas, including exploration drilling. Onshore oil and gas activities are of course not new to the UK, but the more recent development of hydraulic fracturing or fracking is contentious and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, certainly topical.

The Government sought to address the regulatory regime for onshore oil and gas in the publication of planning practice guidance in 2013. At that time, they indicated that proposals would be brought forward to address issues relating to the application process and the level of fees payable to local planning authorities.

The first of these was the subject of a negative instrument that was slipped through Parliament over the Christmas period, giving, as we have heard, scant opportunity for debate; the second is the one that is before us today. So far as process is concerned, the department has been justifiably criticised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for laying these instruments without proper impact assessments and a proper analysis of the related consultation exercise, which itself attracted criticism for being over just a six-week period. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, thoroughly expressed the concerns of that committee. Indeed, we share those concerns. Why does the department continue to get these matters so horribly wrong, showing scant respect for Parliament, as the noble Lord said? This is probably not the occasion to enter into a full-scale debate about future energy policy and energy security, but we are clear that gas has a role to play in the future balanced energy mix, along with renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage. Within that, there is a prospect for shale gas, but with a precautionary approach that needs to address legitimate environmental concerns.

The instrument before us today, which came into effect in January, represents easements for the extraction industry, although perhaps modest ones. These appear to go against the grain of the September 2013 consultation exercise, although the Government’s response does not provide us with details, numbers or percentages of those supporting or opposing the three broad propositions that were canvassed, including the third one, which is the standard application form. Please can these be provided to us?

Specifically, this instrument addresses how planning fees are calculated when there are drilling activities both above and below ground. This is pertinent because activity below the surface will take place horizontally as well as vertically, thereby spreading out much wider than the surface area. It is asserted that the basis of fees for oil and gas applications has long been intended to be related to the area of the surface works only, and that what is before us is a clarification to achieve that objective. That clarification comes with a general 10% fee uplift for all oil and gas applications, which was apparently offered by the offshore industry. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the basis of that calculation and how it relates to the costs that local planning authorities are likely to incur in dealing with applications. Was 10% the industry’s first offer, and what was the range of the negotiations that might have ensued?

The Minister in another place suggested that statutory planning functions are financed from a combination of fees, government grant and locally raised revenue. Indeed, the Minister reiterated that this afternoon. Perhaps she can advise us as to what grants are involved and the future trajectory of grant levels. The Minister in the other place told the Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee:

“Statutory planning functions are not only financed through the fees set, but subsidised by Government grant and locally raised revenue. Our approach to setting fees in England is that they are set nationally and grouped into broad categories such as housing, business and commercial, and onshore oil and gas, approximating to the amount of work involved. The fee is based on the average cost of determination across all local authorities in England. The principle underlying the planning fee regime is that would-be applicants should meet the majority of the costs incurred by planning authorities in determining planning applications”.—[Official Report, Commons, Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee, 5/2/14; cols. 3-4.]

Given the relatively small number of mineral planning authorities it is estimated might be involved in fracking applications, what work has been done to evaluate whether the average for oil and gas applications is appropriate?

The Explanatory Note sets out the government view that planning authorities should concentrate mainly—not exclusively—on the surface impacts of onshore oil and gas development and rely more on the regulatory regimes to manage sub-surface issues. Can the Minister give us some information on the necessary involvement of planning authorities in the non-surface impacts and on how this differs between applications involving hydraulic fracturing and those involving other onshore oil and gas applications, whether concerning exploration, appraisal or production?

Thus far the Government have not been convincing on how they have brought forward these proposals or how they have arrived at the new fee levels. Of course, there are much bigger issues around energy policy, hydraulic fracturing and how communities should be involved and share in the benefits of other developments, but consideration of these matters is not helped when relatively small issues such as this are not dealt with effectively and openly.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, acknowledged, these regulations are not about energy policy or the planning process more widely. However, important issues have been raised by noble Lords which I shall seek to clarify and respond to. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, echoed some of the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I very much regret—my colleagues in the department share my view—that that committee felt moved to comment on the process that we followed in bringing forward these regulations. As I said in my opening remarks, we recognise the importance of providing Parliament with sufficient time and evidence to scrutinise the documentation and the responses to the consultation. In laying the material before Christmas, we did not expect the significant delay that then transpired between that happening and the consultation responses being provided. I assure noble Lords that there is no conspiracy here but I very much take on board the criticism and will reflect on it for the future.

The noble Lord’s remarks on the length of the consultation exercise and the consideration of responses to it were echoed by my noble friend Lady Parminter and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton. It is important for me to stress again that these regulations are very narrow in their purpose. They clarify the existing law and ensure that the Government’s long-standing intention is clear. The other regulations, which are not before us today but were referred to in the scrutiny committee’s report, are important as far as a change around notification is concerned. Those regulations focus very narrowly on notification prior to an application being made by a relevant organisation and certainly do not affect the ongoing process of consultation, which is very important to the process that will be followed if exploration is continued. Therefore, we thought it right to follow the principles set out in the Cabinet Office code, and we felt that six weeks was an appropriate and proportionate amount of time for the consultation period.

As regards analysing the responses, we considered them very carefully but, not surprisingly, because shale gas is a contentious matter, many of those who responded to the consultation, and certainly those who opposed these regulations, used it—this is perfectly understandable and I am certainly not criticising anyone for doing this—to express their opposition in principle to shale. Once the responses were carefully analysed, the number of those who opposed the regulations were opposed less to what was being proposed in the regulations than to the principle of shale itself. They were therefore addressing a different matter in their responses. We have published the consultation responses, albeit belatedly. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked for further detail on this, and our analysis of the consultation is already available in the public domain.

16:00

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, asked about the impact of the regulations and questioned whether we have done enough to assess their impact. As I mentioned in opening the debate, we considered the impact of these regulations on both the public sector and the private sector, but we did not feel that the extent of that impact was so great as to justify the level of detailed assessment that might quite rightly be expected in different circumstances.

My noble friend Lady Parminter asked about the ongoing process of consultation as progress is made with shale exploration. I say to her and to the Committee that the changes we have made are very much around clarifying an existing point of law. As far as the process of consultation and notification is concerned in the future, there is absolutely no question whatever of removing the requirement to notify landowners and tenants. What is happening here is a change to how that is done. Furthermore, applicants must still negotiate with landowners and tenants to gain access to their land. I should say that these proposals are part of an ongoing process as far as consultation is concerned within the planning process. They mark a minimum and they certainly do not prevent any applicant from engaging with local communities beyond what is required as the legal minimum. We still expect and would strongly encourage early and proactive engagement with local communities prior to an application being submitted. If an application was then to progress, that would lead to full consultation with local communities.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked some specific questions about the regulations before us. He asked what work has been done to assess the average costs of processing oil and gas exploration applications. As I think I have already explained, we have not made a separate analysis of the costs of handling oil and gas consultations in isolation. The fees are not calculated in that way. They are based on the average cost of determination across all local authorities in England.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, perhaps I may deal with this point before it slips my memory. As I understand it, the fees relate to the averages of different categories, of which oil and gas is one category. My question was whether the average in respect of oil and gas is fairly representative when you have an oil and gas operation that involves fracking; that is, whether the nature of that operation means that the average for that subset of what is happening across England is fair and reasonable.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am sure that my colleagues will confirm if I am wrong, but I would say that it is. This is about being clear that the fee is for the planning application and that that application, even if it is for shale or other forms of oil and gas, should apply in the same way. The relevant area is the surface area, so the process of determining the fee is the same; the fee is for the planning process rather than for carrying out the work that will take place. However, I gather that it is difficult to assess the averages of such applications, given the small number of applications so far.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the 10% offer from the oil industry in terms of an increase in fees. This proposal came from the industry in response to the consultation exercise. It was not something on which the Government entered into negotiation with the industry. The noble Lord also asked about the role of planning authorities in surface and non-surface input and applications. The planning practice guidance published in July provides clarity on the role of the planning system and other regulatory regimes. The planning role is largely focused on surface impact, while the sub-surface matters are largely assessed by the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and DECC.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I promise not to interrupt again. The Explanatory Note makes reference to surface impact being mainly involved, but opens up the possibility that it is not exclusively surface impact. I am trying to understand, having looked at the guidance, what specifically might be involved in other aspects of the process.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Does the noble Lord mean in terms of the planning application fee?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

In terms of what is involved in dealing with a planning application.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I will see if something further comes for me on that while I am on my feet, but I may have to follow it up in writing to the noble Lord.

The noble Lord also asked—this may also answer the point he has just raised—whether the planning fees should cover wider issues than processing an application. The planning legislation is clear that fees may be payable to the planning authority for considering an application; their use for any other purpose would not be possible. Other regulations already exist to ensure that the operator is liable for any damage or pollution that operations may cause. The operator is also responsible for safe abandonment of the wells and for restoring the well site to its previous state, or a suitable condition for reuse. If that is where the noble Lord was coming from, my point is that if there were other costs involved, they are already covered by other regulations. As I do not seem to be receiving any signal that I will be able to answer the noble Lord’s question while I am on my feet, I hope that he will accept my offer of following that up in writing.

In conclusion, I stress again that I hear loudly and clearly the concerns that have been expressed by the scrutiny committee, which have been echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and others today. However, I emphasise again that these regulations clarify a point of law so that the Government’s long-standing policy intention is clear. They are nothing more substantial than that in terms of the contentious but important issue of shale exploration. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will feel that I have answered all their points.

Motion agreed.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Designated Activities) Order 2014

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:10

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Designated Activities) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2014 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Consumer Credit) (Designated Activities) Order 2014. With the Committee’s permission, I will refer to them as the regulated activities amendment order and the designated activities order.

A well functioning consumer credit market is vital to the economy and to society. However, the market is not functioning as it should and consumers are not being properly protected. The current licensing regime run by the Office of Fair Trading and established under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 lacks the capacity and powers comprehensively to tackle consumer detriment. It cannot keep pace with this fast-innovating market. That is why we are moving the regulation of consumer credit to the Financial Conduct Authority from this April. We will make sure that the regime is proportionate and supports a sustainable and competitive credit market. The Government laid statutory instruments last summer to provide the framework for this regulatory transfer. However, there remain a small number of largely technical issues to address to ensure that the transfer runs smoothly and is proportionate for business. I shall set out how the statutory instruments we are considering today will address these outstanding issues.

The regulated activities amendment order addresses the following principal points. As regards local authorities’ credit activities, they are not required to hold a consumer credit licence under the current regime. The Government set out in their March 2013 consultation their intention to preserve this status quo. Local authorities will need to be FCA-authorised only where this is necessary for compliance with the consumer credit directive. This will minimise burdens on local authorities and avoid gold-plating. To further minimise burdens on local authorities, the instrument provides that those which require authorisation should be eligible for the FCA’s limited permission regime, where costs and regulatory burdens will be lower.

As regards the provision relating to the retained Consumer Credit Act provisions, the Financial Services and Markets Act, on which the new consumer credit regime is based, provides for a rule-based approach to allow more flexible and responsive regulation of this market. The Government have already repealed many provisions in the Consumer Credit Act and associated secondary legislation so that they can be replicated in FCA rules. However, the Government decided to carry forward a number of important consumer rights and protections from the CCA where they cannot be replicated easily under the Financial Services and Markets Act.

In the longer term, however, the Government are confident that many of these provisions can be replaced by rules-based consumer protections. This instrument therefore places a requirement on the FCA to review retained CCA provisions by 2019. It will recommend to government which remaining such provisions can be repealed and replaced with FCA rules, taking into account the implications for consumer protection and burdens for firms. The FCA will report to the Treasury, but the order requires the Treasury to lay a copy of the report before Parliament. This review was proposed in the Government’s March 2013 consultation and was well received by respondents from both industry and consumer groups. Ultimately it will help to ensure that the consumer credit regime is based on the powers and requirements set out in FiSMA, unifying the basis for conduct regulation of financial services in the UK.

The order also makes provisions relating to peer-to-peer lending. The Government are keen for regulation of this sector to balance the protection of consumer borrowing and lending through the platforms with a proportionate regime that can support the growth of the sector.

16:15

This instrument makes sure that there is a clear distinction between the activity of credit broking and the activity of operating an electronic system in relation to lending. Credit brokers were concerned that they might be treated under the new regime as electronic systems, for which they would need additional regulatory permission. We have listened to these concerns. The instrument also extends the definition of a credit agreement to include loans from an individual to a business, via a platform. This ensures that individuals lending to businesses through a platform are afforded the same protection as individuals lending to individuals via such a platform.

With regard to insolvency practitioners, the Government are committed to avoiding double regulation by excluding such practitioners from consumer credit regulation where professional insolvency rules apply, or where the insolvency practitioner provides debt advice in genuine and reasonable contemplation of formal appointment as an insolvency practitioner. However, where an insolvency practitioner is carrying out other regulated consumer credit business, such as debt management, it is important that he is FCA-authorised and regulated in order to protect consumers. This instrument, therefore, includes provisions to provide greater flexibility and a more proportionate solution for insolvency practitioners, by replacing the current statutory exemptions for certain debt-related activities with exclusions.

In response to concerns raised by industry, the instrument also allows firms to refer to both the OFT and the FCA as the supervisory authority during a five-month period following this order coming into force. This will help to smooth the transition for firms and avoid their having to change all their systems and documentation on the stroke of midnight on 31 March, while still ensuring that consumers are clear on the regulatory status of the firms that they are dealing with. The instrument also makes a number of other consequential amendments.

I turn now to the designated activities order, which addresses illegal trading. The Government tabled an amendment to the Financial Services Act 2012 to make it a criminal offence for an authorised person to carry out particular FiSMA-regulated activities outside their permission. This instrument specifies that debt collecting and lending will be the activities in question. This is where there is the clearest evidence of exploitation of consumers. A number of loan sharks and unscrupulous debt collectors have been prosecuted for lending and debt collecting under the cover of an OFT licence for a lower-risk credit activity. This instrument will make sure that such practices remain criminal offences under the new regime.

I hope I have reassured the Committee that these SIs will help to ensure that the Government’s plans for fundamental reform of consumer credit regulation run smoothly, and strike the right balance between improving consumer protection and ensuring that regulation is proportionate.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to both orders. The first takes up little more than a page, while the Explanatory Memorandum attached to it takes up 49 pages. The second order takes up 30 pages and the Explanatory Memorandum for that also takes up 49 pages, but is essentially the same text as the first one. That is not a complaint: the Explanatory Memorandum is a model of its kind—it is clear, thorough and indicates clearly areas of doubt or uncertainty.

There is one area of doubt or uncertainty arising: the effect on SMEs—not as providers of credit but as customers of credit providers. The impact assessment estimates the cost of the measures over 10 years at £336 billion and the benefit at £689 million—an estimated net benefit of £353 billion. However, the impact assessment does not say how this net benefit is distributed. That is my first question: are SMEs net beneficiaries or is all the benefit delivered elsewhere?

The impact assessment also makes it clear that it expects a shrinking of the credit market. It estimates that 9,000, or 20%, of credit organisations will exit the market. It is true that these organisations represent only a small percentage by volume of total credit, but is this lost lending concentrated in the SME sector? That is my second question to the Minister. We know that net lending to SMEs continues to decline. Can the Minister provide some general reassurance that the measures before us will not make the position worse?

The note in paragraph 53 on page 13 of the impact assessment makes the point that the FCA’s most effective regulatory tools and framework to be brought about by these orders will be,

“effective in tackling known consumer detriment occurring in the non-mainstream lending market such as: payday loans, credit brokerage, debt management and home collected credit”.

That is an important improvement and I welcome it, especially as it will apply to payday loans. However, at first reading there seem to be some areas missing from the list. The impact assessment notes in paragraph 25 on page 8, as a rationale for intervention,

“that the market is not functioning as well as it should and the regulatory regime cannot keep pace with the market”.

However, as far as I can detect, no explicit mention is made anywhere in the orders or the Explanatory Memorandums of crowdfunding or peer-to-peer lending. As the Minister knows, these are rapidly growing credit areas, and ones that offer additional opportunities for SME funding. Can the Minister confirm for the Committee that crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending will fall within the ambit of these orders? I think I heard the Minister say that that is the case for peer-to-peer lending, but I should like to know whether it is also the case for crowdfunding.

Before I conclude, I should like to ask the Minister a little more about the effects of these orders on payday lenders. The Minister has previously confirmed elsewhere that under the terms of the EU e-commerce directive, the UK has no power to cap the cost of payday loans extended by companies based in the EEA and trading only electronically in the UK. However, I notice in paragraph (5)(e) on page 16 of the second order that the authority has the power to prohibit the entry into credit agreements by an EEA authorised payment institution if that institution,

“engages in business practices appearing to the Authority to be deceitful or oppressive or otherwise unfair or improper (including practices that appear to the Authority to involve irresponsible lending)”.

Does this provision apply to payday lenders based in the EEA and operating only electronically here in the UK?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome these two orders. It is the duty of Her Majesty’s Opposition to study secondary legislation and then to oppose it where we find errors and faults, but I have to say that I have not been as successful as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in finding questions to pose to the Minister, so at least my words will give him a little time to collect together his notes on those technical areas. While we welcome the orders, my honourable friend in another place did ask one or two questions which seemed to be answered satisfactorily. As far as I can tell, the orders do their job. With the permission of the Committee, I should like in a sense to celebrate these orders because they represent the last hurdles of effecting the transfer of responsibilities for consumer credit from the OFT to the FCA. Over the past many months, we have all been concerned about the consumer credit market, in particular its grey areas and payday lending.

I, too, have studied all 49 pages of the impact assessment, although I did not find the same inconsistencies as the noble Lord. I did pick up an implication that the resources to be devoted to the area seem to be tripling from around £10 million per annum to £30 million, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm the extent to which new resources are being made available for this new activity. What does this represent in terms of resources and people at the FCA devoted to the consumer credit market? Will it involve the transfer of people from the OFT? Will it involve new and perhaps more capable people working in this market? Will there be a change in attitude and culture on the part of those working in this area?

As has been pointed out, there are some detailed areas, but the really serious evil here is the loan sharks, the rogue lenders and the payday loans market. That market is pretty worrying at every level, from the one-person operator through to major organisations. It involves probably some of the most vulnerable consumers in the land, who are people making decisions in very difficult and stressful circumstances. If ever a market needed intelligent, proactive government regulation, it is this one, and I hope that what the Government have designed will do it.

I would be grateful if the Minister could say a few words about how the regulators will be more proactive. The documentation makes the point that the FCA can be forward-looking and create regulations quickly. I would be grateful if the Minister could expand on that and give me some reassurance—in response to a point made by a colleague—that the new unit will be able to strangle products at birth; in other words, will be sufficiently proactive to sweep the market for the emergence of new products and move quickly to kill them before they do the social harm that we know they can do.

One of the aspirations of these changes is to bring rogue firms under control, which I think we all welcome. The problem is that it might increase opportunities for illegal operations. I feel as though I am in a pantomime now and saying, “Look behind you”, because notes are at the Minister’s right hand. To what extent will the unit work with the police where it sees the early emergence of illegal operations and stamp them out before they can create the evil which we know happens in communities under stress?

[Lord Newby]

I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. Even by the standards of statutory instruments, these are extremely opaque, but the powers they contain are important and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, tidy up and, one hopes, finalise the secondary legislation that is needed to effect their transfer.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked a number of questions about the extent to which SMEs could be adversely affected by the regulations. While there may be some impact on lending to SMEs by some non-bank lenders, we would expect it to be extremely small. The stock of lending to business that is consumer credit is estimated to be, at most, 5% of total lending to SMEs. If we are talking about a small proportion of that 5% disappearing, it is a very small impact. We believe that the Government’s wider initiatives, such as the Funding for Lending scheme, will over time far outweigh the negative impact of the transfer. It is worth bearing in mind that SMEs, like any other consumers, can enter into credit agreements that may drive them into unsustainable levels of debt. The enhanced consumer protection that we hope and expect will flow from this transfer will benefit SME debtors.

16:30

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked me a specific question about whether the orders apply to crowdfunding as they do to peer-to-peer lending. I confirm that that is the case. Does this make it better or worse—or easier or more difficult—for the P2P and crowdfunding sectors to grow? Enhancing the protection—the order extends protection to individuals lending to businesses as well as individuals lending to individuals—will, we hope, reassure potential investors that they are covered by the legislation and, therefore, will result in an enhanced level of interest in the sector.

On the broader issue of how we increase lending to small businesses, which we have debated many times in your Lordships’ House, it is extremely interesting to note that the number of lenders to SMEs reached 91 last year, having reached a record low when the crisis bottomed out in 2009. There are a lot of new players in the market and the Government encourage that. An initiative that we are trying to promote is to encourage the high-street banks, which very often cannot make loans to SMEs, to refer the latter on to P2P and crowdfunding sources. It is fair to say that this is still at an embryonic stage but that is a way in which we hope, and expect, the sector will grow. However, the key thing about P2P lending is that as people see that it works—this will be its biggest impetus to further growth—and as those running small businesses see their colleagues running businesses successfully, having raised funds in that manner, word will get around even more quickly than it is already doing. We expect the sector to continue to grow.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, also asked a question about the EU and how the provisions allow the FCA to stop payday lenders passporting into the UK from abroad. This is a big issue, as we know, but it is separate from the application of this SI. As the noble Lord knows, the FCA is looking at the whole complex issue of how to ensure that we can effectively cap payday lending costs.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked a number of questions about the resources and attitude that will now be brought to bear on this sector. He asked about the level of overall resource devoted to consumer credit regulation. I can confirm the figures in the impact assessment. The relevant figure will roughly triple as a result of the transfer. There will be a transfer of personnel from the OFT to the FCA, but, obviously, the FCA has fundamentally different powers and objectives from the OFT, particularly as regards consumer protection objectives. Therefore, while we hope that we can get the best of the experience coming across, we feel that needs to be augmented.

This bears on the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about the extent to which there will be a change of attitude and culture in regulating consumer credit. We certainly think that there will as, compared with the outgoing OFT regime, the FCA has a far more rigorous and proactive attitude towards consumer detriment generally, and this will impact on how it approaches the consumer credit market. It will, we think, be able to keep pace with developments in the market to a greater extent than the OFT was able to. It is more flexible and contains stronger powers for the regulator to tackle detrimental practices and root out rogue firms. As to whether it will be able to do it at an early enough stage—the “strangling at birth”—the key power that the FCA has that the OFT did not have in the same form is the product intervention power, which allows the FCA to mandate, restrict or ban certain features of a financial product, to restrict its sale to certain groups of consumers, or to ban it outright. It can use these powers at any stage, including at an early stage. We are confident that it will want to do so.

The noble Lord’s final point was on whether the FCA would be working closely with the police in cases where rogue firms are established and seen to be operating. Yes, I am confident that it will. The FCA is very clear that that forms part of its overall mandate in dealing with consumer credit. On that basis, I commend the SIs to the Grand Committee.

Motion agreed.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2014

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:36

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

Motion agreed.

Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2013

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:37

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishes the criteria and mechanisms for determining the member state responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the member states by a third-country national or a stateless person, known as the Dublin III arrangements. Under these arrangements, the United Kingdom can apply for another member state to consider an asylum application, and provide appropriate protection if that application is successful, where an individual’s first point of entry to the European Union is that other member state but an application for asylum is made in the United Kingdom.

Under these arrangements, a member state is required, if the financial means of the individual and merits of the case justify it, to provide free legal assistance and representation in relation to an appeal or review of certain decisions made under Dublin III. The Dublin III arrangements replace those set out in Council Regulations (EC) No 343/2003 of 18 February 2003, known as Dublin II. We have in this country routinely provided legal aid in relation to Dublin II matters.

The key difference between the old and the new arrangements, from the Ministry of Justice’s perspective, is that the requirement to provide free legal assistance for certain appeals, which in the UK is met through judicial review, is made explicit. The explicit provision in Dublin III for legal aid also prescribes a merits test, particular to it, that is to be applied. These regulations amend the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 to give effect to the particular merits test. The merits criteria are tests which the Director of Legal Aid Casework must apply in deciding whether an individual qualifies for civil legal services.

The amendment before us today allows for the merits test set out in Dublin III to apply—namely that the prospects of success of an individual case must be judged to be greater than,

“no tangible prospect of success”.

The instrument therefore makes provision to ensure that we meet our international obligations but changes nothing else. Noble Lords will be aware that the Ministry of Justice laid an urgency statement alongside this instrument, in order that it could come into force without delay, as per the procedures set out in Section 41(9) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.

Due to an administrative oversight, my officials at the Ministry of Justice failed to recognise that there was a subtle difference between the merits test prescribed in Dublin III and the existing tests more generally applied to applications for judicial review. In the case of judicial review, the prospects of success must be at least moderate. By the time this oversight was recognised, insufficient time remained to make the necessary changes via the standard draft affirmative procedure. The urgency procedure was used to ensure that the appropriate test applied from the point when the Dublin III arrangements came into effect, on 1 January this year. This means that there was no risk of an individual being unfairly disadvantaged by having the incorrect test applied to their application for legal aid, hence the urgency. I hope that my explanation has been of assistance to noble Lords. I commend this instrument to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a rare opportunity for me to congratulate the Government on breaking the habits of this Parliament’s lifetime on access to legal aid. It is only 12 days since we had a debate about prison law and entered into a discussion about borderline cases for legal aid, when the noble Lord was vigorously supported by precisely no members of the Government—nor, indeed, anybody else—in a debate in which 15 Members were exercised about the restrictions on legal aid and the merits criteria under which these decisions will be taken.

However, on this occasion, the Government have not only done better than that, they have also refrained from stigmatising European legislation as an outrage to our constitution which should not be implemented if at all possible. For that small mercy, I am sure that we are grateful. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to convey to his Secretary of State the fact that a move towards something less stringent than the previous formulation about “no tangible prospect of success”, which is effectively what we are ending up with in other areas, would also be better applied to the remaining legal aid jurisdiction and not just that which is invoked by the European treaty and Dublin III. Having said that, we very much welcome the regulations.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, congratulations being in short supply in the context of legal aid, I gratefully accept them from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. I will pass on his comments on the lack of stigmatisation of European legislation and his suggestion to amend the merits test. I am sure that the Secretary of State will read carefully his comments in Hansard.

There is little more for me to add, except that this should enable no injustice to be done. Legal aid should be available. The urgency, while regrettable, has been explained to the Committee. In those circumstances, I commend this instrument.

Motion agreed.

Tribunal Security Order 2014

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:44

Moved by Lord Faulks

That the Grand Committee do consider the Tribunal Security Order 2014.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con): My Lords, the purpose of this order is to provide that tribunal security officers at tribunal venues have powers consistent with those already available to court security officers throughout England and Wales. By way of background, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (Commencement No. 16) Order 2013 brought into force Section 148 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which contains a power for the Lord Chancellor to make an order allowing for the designation of tribunal security officers and to apply to tribunals the provisions in Part 4 of the Courts Act 2003 relating to court security.

The current security presence at Crown Courts, county courts and magistrates’ courts enables court business to be carried on without interference or delay, maintains order and secures the safety of any person in the court building, including members of the judiciary, staff, professionals and other court users. Court security officers have specific powers, provided by the Courts Act 2003, to enable them to discharge their duties. These include: the power to search any individual attempting to enter, or already on, the premises, including any baggage et cetera in their possession; the powers to request the surrender of any article or, where the request is refused, to seize it, with specific regulations in relation to knives; and the power to remove, exclude or restrain a person who is in a court building. In addition, the Courts Act 2003 provides that it is a criminal offence to assault or obstruct a court security officer in the execution of their duties.

The current security guarding provision differs greatly across tribunal venues, and has no statutory backing. The provision ranges from general administrative roles to patrolling the premises. The order before us will enable the consistent management of all risks, recognition of the exposure some tribunals face due to a lack of security, and direct action to ensure that incidents are kept to a minimum and, when they do arise, are dealt with effectively.

Ensuring the smooth running of the administration of justice in tribunal venues is important. The Government, therefore, seek to expand the powers of the present court security contingent to cover tribunal venues and hearing centres throughout England and Wales. I commend the draft order to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a perfectly sensible change to the rules to provide for security on tribunal premises. I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer the one or two questions I have immediately, but it would be interesting to know whether there is a record of any significant incidents in which the presence of a security officer with these powers would have made a difference. It would be interesting to know how many problems have arisen or are arising, and how that compares with the other courts. That said, it is clearly sensible to have these provisions. However, can the Minister say how the Government intend to proceed in terms of the employment of such staff? Will they be seeking to contract this operation out, like so much else of the administration of justice, to contractors such as G4S and Serco? Or will it be done, as it were, in-house?

Secondly, will they, in any event, ensure that staff employed on this important task are paid at least a living wage? I fear that people may be employed on part-time, minimum-wage conditions. Given the nature of the job, that would be entirely unjustified. It would be helpful to know, if not now then subsequently, what the Government’s attitude would be, whether it is providing the services directly or contracting them out. Subject to these observations, I very much endorse the regulations.

[Lord Faulks]

Contrary to his expectation, I think I can answer some of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.

In the reporting period from April 2013 to 31 December 2013, a total of 75 security incidents were reported from tribunal venues and hearing centres. Those incidents are classified in a number of ways. Examples include verbal abuse, verbal threats and unauthorised access through to security systems or loss of ID. I do not have any further breakdown, but I hope that gives the noble Lord at least some idea of the scale. I also do not have information comparing that with security incidents at courts, but it can be seen that it is a substantial potential threat, and the noble Lord has been good enough to acknowledge that it is appropriate to make this change. Of course, it was not possible under the 2003 Act until the Tribunals Service was brought within the overall control of the Courts Service.

I turn to the questions around employment. Important pre-employment checks will be made on contractors—and there will be independent contractors—to assess their suitability to work within the organisation. I am instructed that the guards will be provided by G4S and Mitie. Some tribunal venues and hearing centres are covered by the PRIME contract. The contract has input from the Department for Work and Pensions and is managed by a private organisation, Telereal Trillium. The guards will be supplied to these sites by G4S or Mitie depending on their geographical location, and the template seen across the court sites will be used to manage security within tribunal venues and hearing centres.

As part of the employment process, the relevant contractor will undertake pre-employment checks to assess applicants’ suitability to work within their organisation, including obtaining references, interviews and so on. Before designation—the word apparently used in this context—HMCTS undertakes further suitability checks to confirm the identity of the individual. Checks are made of disclosure and barring service certificates, and an assessment is made of the appropriate level of training required. The assessment of this suitability is part of the designation process, with assurances going to the Lord Chancellor. As part of the application process, all potential designates must hold a current Security Industry Authority licence and have completed training on conflict management and physical intervention. There is also continuing monitoring of employees’ ability, but I will not provide all the details now.

I noticed that the noble Lord’s eyebrows were raised slightly by the reference to G4S. He may be thinking back to the question of electronic monitoring and tagging. The tagging contract is not linked to the provision of security on court sites; rather, it is managed by a separate department within G4S. I hope that that provides some assurance for the noble Lord.

[Lord Beecham]

Will the noble Lord respond to the questions about the conditions of the staff in terms of earnings, zero hour contracts and so on?

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for reminding me about the question of the living wage. I do not have any details on the precise wages, but I will write to him.

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

My Lords, the Grand Committee is not quorate at the moment so I suggest that it adjourns for a few minutes.

16:53

Sitting suspended.

16:55

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, the Grand Committee is now quorate.

Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2014

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 15 January. I am satisfied that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Our task today is to consider the automatic enrolment figures that will set minimum savings levels from this April. The automatic enrolment earnings trigger sets the automatic entry point to determine who saves in a workplace pension. The qualifying earnings band then determines how much people save and sets employer minimum contribution levels.

This debate is now an annual fixture on our calendar—automatic enrolment is business as usual in so many respects. There is much on which we agree and we share common ground on the principles of automatic enrolment. The aim of automatic enrolment is to broaden access to workplace pensions and increase savings levels. In the end everybody should be able to say, “I’m in”, because saving is the norm. We can see from early opt-out figures that the trend is to stay in. That is enormously encouraging.

First and foremost, automatic enrolment needs to target those workers who are not saving but should be. To do this, it needs to exclude those very low earners for whom saving on top of the pension that they will get from the state may not make economic sense, especially while they have other priorities. It also needs to provide low earners with access to pension saving—with an employer contribution—if saving is the right decision for them.

This year there is a new element in the mix. This will be the significant year when automatic enrolment moves to the SME—small and medium-sized enterprise—sector. We will bring companies employing between 250 and 50 people on board. Some of these employers will be putting a pension scheme in place for the first time. Many of their workers will be new to pension saving. We need to be realistic about automatic enrolment costs. Although some workers will have personal pensions, many will not have had access to an employer’s scheme and will see a new deduction from their pay for the first time. Affordability is very important.

Parliament has already made some arrangements to address this issue. Minimum contribution levels are being phased in to get non-savers and employers who are new to pension schemes starting slowly. The absolute minimum is 1% from both workers and employers for the first five years. Some schemes will require more, but the 1% matched is the absolute minimum. This soft landing will help to mainstream automatic enrolment.

However, we still have a balancing act when it comes to the annual thresholds. Automatic enrolment is a tailored policy. It does not force pension saving on to everyone regardless of earnings. Our overall aim in setting the figures in this instrument is to maximise the number of people saving who can afford it, while excluding those who cannot. It also needs to cap minimum employer contributions for higher-paid staff and let existing arrangements cater for this market.

17:00

The Government still believe that the automatic enrolment trigger should exclude workers who do not earn enough to pay tax and it makes sense to align the existing payroll thresholds. If you pay tax, you pay into a pension. This is a simple principle that employers can use to explain automatic enrolment.

This brings me to safeguards, opt-in and the impact on women in particular. Saving should be an individual decision for people whose earnings hover around the tax threshold. That decision is likely to be influenced by other domestic and financial circumstances and the make-up of the household. That is why the right to opt in, with an employer contribution, is such an important feature of automatic enrolment.

Schemes designed to cater for the under-pensioned market and those targeting low-to-moderate earners use the relief-at-source tax relief mechanism precisely because it gives access to tax relief to help low earners. This, too, is an important feature of how pension saving works.

We fully recognise that any rise in the trigger will disproportionately affect women. This is not a gender issue; we think that the outcome of this review is right for people on very low incomes, regardless of gender.

The other danger that we have to avoid is pitching the trigger too low. We know that people say that they do not save in a pension because they cannot afford it—that is the principal reason given. If we set the trigger too low, people will simply opt out, which serves no one in terms of increasing the amount of pension saving that takes place.

The automatic enrolment trigger does not exist in isolation. It is an entry point to saving that works hand in hand with the qualifying earnings band. The band sets a minimum definition of pensionable pay. In simple terms, if you earn £10,000 a year, you will pay pension contributions on anything over £5,772.

We have linked this lower figure of the qualifying earnings band to the national insurance lower limit. Our aim is to have a system that facilitates private pension income to sit on the foundation of the state single-tier pension. State pension starts to accrue on earnings equal to the national insurance lower earnings limit. This gives us synergy, to build private pension saving alongside state pension accruals.

I said earlier that setting these thresholds is a balancing act. In that respect, we acknowledge that there is no right or wrong answer. We believe that these proposals continue to provide broad access to pension saving and maintain contribution levels for the target group. We aimed to set the trigger and the qualifying earnings band so that they work in harmony to deliver three objectives: to bring the right people into pension saving; for them to save at least a reasonable but affordable minimum starting amount; and to balance the costs and benefits to individuals and employers. With that assurance, I commend this instrument to the Committee.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak on the earnings trigger in particular. I offer my apologies to the Committee: this item of business was not published and I have been sitting in a finance sub-committee taking evidence from Her Majesty’s Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which was quite compelling. I therefore ask your Lordships to accept my apologies for being a few minutes late.

I rise to speak on this statutory instrument because we see another year and another increase in the earnings trigger for automatic enrolment and another several thousand more women being disadvantaged and excluded from the UK pension system. I shall persist with this issue year after year because I fear that we are taking what started as a well designed private pension system, certainly in intent, and trying to make it an increasingly part-time-women-free area.

In 2011-12, 600,000 individuals, 78% of them women, were excluded from automatic enrolment. In 2012-13, the Government excluded another 100,000 people, 82% of them of women, by virtue of raising the earnings trigger. In 2013-14, another 420,000 people were excluded, 72% of them women, and now, for 2014-15, by increasing the trigger to £10,000, another 170,000 people will be excluded, 69% of them women. It reads as a rather depressing roll-call. The culling of women from the UK private pension system has almost become the Government’s annual sport.

I find it quite extraordinary that the coalition Government are so determined to carve out so many women from the UK private pension system. If women and men who earn below £10,000 are not automatically enrolled and do not, because of inertia, voluntarily opt in to their employer’s workplace scheme, many of them will experience several disadvantages. When automatic enrolment is phased in to their employer, they will not be in the pension scheme. Those excluded—mostly women—will suffer a loss in lifetime pay, albeit deferred pay, because they do not have access to the employer’s 3%—for some, where the employer contribution is above 3%, the loss is even greater. However, they will still lose out from any reduction in wage levels that flows from the cost to the employer of automatic enrolment.

When they move from a full-time job with one employer to a part-time job with another, they may not join the new employer’s scheme and are therefore at risk, first, of becoming an inactive member and subject to inactive member charge premiums on their existing pension pot unless the Government ban active member discounts—whether they will do that is a big question. Secondly, they are at risk of being defaulted into a personal pension by their previous employer, who does not allow ex-employees to stay in their workplace scheme. Therefore they leave an employer and are full-time, and then as a part-time employee they are not covered by auto-enrolment. Their accrued pot is vulnerable to higher charges and would not be protected by a pot-follows-member or any other aggregation mechanism.

As I said, they would not benefit from any aggregation mechanism, so they are not in their new employer’s scheme. They are not an active member, so their previous pension pot will flounder. When I raised this point in Committee the last time we discussed the increase in the earnings trigger for auto-enrolment, it was before we had the detail of pot follows member. The Minister, Lord Freud, commented:

“I will stand my ground a little bit on this, because these are some of the issues that really come into consideration when we look at the broader issue of pension pots”.—[Official Report, 22/5/12; col. GC 20.]

However, we now know that pot follows member will apply only where an individual is an active member of their employer’s scheme. Therefore, if these women are not automatically enrolled and inertia keeps them out of their scheme, they are unprotected; they are not protected by pot follows member. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, may have stood his ground then, but I am afraid that, now that we know the details of pot follows member, that ground has now moved from beneath him. Those women’s pots will just flounder without protection.

If part-time workers earning below £10,000 are not persistent low earners over their lifetime, which many will not be—a point confirmed in the Johnson review commissioned by the Government—and are not automatically enrolled into their employer’s pension scheme when they are on the lower earnings, the persistency of the savings habit that they built up will be broken and the accumulated value of their pension pot over their lifetime of pension saving will be reduced. Given the advent of the single-tier pension, which will be set at a level only slightly above pension credit but which will be based on national insurance record and crediting and not means-testing, the fact that low-paid workers are not automatically enrolled into their employer’s pension scheme means that they will simply be denied the opportunity to accrue even a modest amount of capital. That is yet another example of the awful attitude that says that public policy does not need to assist low-paid workers to accumulate capital or assets.

The reasons why the earnings trigger should not be raised any further are absolutely clear. Not all those earning below the earnings trigger of £10,000 are persistent low earners. Low earners should be able to accumulate savings over and above the single-tier pension, and the trivial commutation rules will allow most of them to take it in cash. This disproportionately affects women and breaches a basic principle that, in designing state and private pension systems, both systems should work for women, yet each time this earnings trigger is raised we carve out or cull thousands of women from the UK private pensions system.

Let us look in detail at some of the Government’s arguments—their preoccupation with the low earners. Almost half of those in the lowest-earning group are in couples where one works part-time and the other full-time. Most very low earners are women who live in households with others on higher earnings and they are receiving working tax credits. These are precisely the people who should be automatically enrolled in saving, yet we have seen persistently a rising earnings trigger that excludes them. Furthermore, the value of the loss of the employer’s contribution of 3% of qualifying earnings from raising the earnings trigger and not being auto-enrolled is greater than the tax reduction that they get from increasing the tax threshold. The combination of the two therefore means that the lowest earners could be worse off. They lose more from not being auto-enrolled than they gain from the increase in the tax thresholds.

Earnings are not static for many workers, either men or women. They can change significantly over a lifetime. Most low earners go on to earn more, so saving would still be beneficial because of the continuing contribution to their pensions over their working lives. Millions of women have a life pattern in which periods of full-time work are interspersed with significant periods of part-time work when caring responsibilities are at their greatest. Part-time working is part of the systemic solution to childcare in this country. When we look at the labour market statistics, we see that we respond by saying, “We are not going to auto-enrol you into your employer’s pension scheme when you are working part-time for periods of childcare or other forms of care”.

The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The Secretary of State has concluded that it is appropriate to enrol people automatically into workplace pension saving once they earn enough to pay income tax”.

However, this disregards how working-age benefits can make it pay to save. The 100% disregard of individuals’ pension contributions from income brought to account when calculating entitlement to universal credit has been maintained thanks to the intervention of the Minister and the consequence is that it provides a positive incentive to save for many low-paid people. However, what are we doing? We are excluding them from the benefits of auto-enrolment by raising the earnings trigger.

As to persistent low earners, because within that population there will be some, the argument that they should not save because they get state pension and benefits means that yet again there will be no asset accumulation strategy for them. That position is even more indefensible with the advent of the single tier because it is not means-tested, so there is no means-tested track against the single tier that they can genuinely build up, even by only a modest amount of capital, by being auto-enrolled, that will not be lost on the means-tested basis against that single tier.

On my approximate estimates, increasing the earnings trigger to £10,000 from its original level has excluded 1,290,000 individuals per year from workplace pensions, 75% of whom would be women, at a loss to those individuals of approximately £40 million of employer pension contributions. But the cumulative total of those impacted, because different individuals are impacted year on year, will be much higher. This suggests that the group targeted to benefit from workplace pension reform will comprise approximately 65% men and only 35% women.

I come back to my basic point. We are increasingly designing, or “undesigning”, a private pension scheme to exclude ever greater numbers of women every time the earnings trigger is raised. It is simply not a credible argument to say that the impact of the earnings trigger can be mitigated by those earning below the £10,000 threshold being allowed to opt in voluntarily. Inertia prevents people from saving, and that is the whole point of auto-enrolment. You cannot say, “Because the rest of the population will not save we have to have auto-enrolment, but the very low earners can opt in”. It is an absolute nonsense. Low earners are not exempt from the maxim that inertia stops people saving, which is why you need auto-enrolment. As I said, a key principle of pension reform is to enable women to build up a pension in their own right. The higher the earnings threshold for auto-enrolment, the less the reforms will work for women. Each year since 2010, the Government have consistently excluded more and more women from the UK private pensions system.

The numbers remaining in employers’ pension schemes as a consequence of auto-enrolment have been a success for the Government. To date, roughly 90% of people have embraced auto-enrolment and stayed in. Perhaps that will drop a little when we get to the smaller companies, but it has been a success and the Government should be pleased with that. But when it comes to the reforms working for women, particularly women who work part-time, the Government are in danger of snatching failure from the jaws of success.

With the exclusion of 1.25 million women—and rising, because I am sure that the earnings trigger will go up again—we are designing a private pension system that does not work for women who work part-time. We know that in five or 10 years’ time the absolute failure of that decision will be exposed, as previously when women who work part-time were excluded from pensions. But by that time millions of women will have lost the advantage of being auto-enrolled into a private pension. The Government are simply wrong to say that simplicity for employers is worth the price of excluding 1.25 million women—and rising—from the benefits of auto-enrolment.

17:15

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order, and I apologise for missing the first few seconds of it. Like my noble friend, I was caught out by the omission of this order from today’s lists, and I apologise to the Committee. I also thank my noble friend Lady Drake for her very detailed and extraordinarily learned analysis of the impact of this order and the ones that have preceded it. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give it the answer it deserves, and I look forward to hearing that.

A helpful note on this subject from the House of Commons Library dated 17 December 2013 reminds us that the original idea proposed by the Pensions Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, of which my noble friend Lady Drake was such a distinguished member, was that the qualifying earnings band should start at the primary threshold for national insurance purposes and should finish at the NI upper earnings limit. The previous Government said in their 2006 pensions White Paper that they would adopt broadly this approach, so the lower and upper limits of the qualifying earnings band were set at £5,035 and £33,540 respectively, and provision was made for both limits to be increased in line with earnings.

The real jump came with the Government’s Pensions Act 2011, which introduced an earnings trigger for auto-enrolment set at a level higher than the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band, on which contributions are paid. As we have heard, for 2011-12 the trigger was set at £7,475 rather than the planned threshold of £5,035 in 2006-07 terms, and the effect of that was to exclude 600,000 individuals, 75% of them women. My noble friend went through some of these figures but I think it is worth rehearsing them because the Minister will have to give us an answer about the effect of these changes.

Since then, the exclusions have mounted up. In 2012-13, the trigger rose to £8,105, excluding 100,000 people, 82% of them women. In 2013-14, it rose to £9,440, excluding some 420,000 people, of whom 300,000—72%—were women. Now, as we have heard, by going up again from £9,440 to £10,000, the Government will exclude another 170,000 people, of whom 120,000—69%—are women. I would be very interested to know if the Government agree with the figure offered by my noble friend Lady Drake about the cumulative number of people who have been excluded from auto-enrolment by these changes.

The DWP paper titled Review of the Automatic Enrolment Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band for 2014/15: Supporting Analysis—I commend the officials on its title—issued in December 2013, offers the defence that the reason that so many women are affected is that women are more likely to work part-time and to earn less than men, so they will be disproportionately represented in the group excluded from auto-enrolment. Well, yes, of course. That is not a defence, it is a reason, but that still leaves the problem. Now another 170,000 are to be excluded from the benefits of auto-enrolment into pension saving.

Of course, not only are women more likely to work part-time but there are those who work in more than one mini-job, neither of which takes them above the trigger point for being brought into this. Those women could, in fact, be earning significant sums of money on which contributions would be payable but because neither job takes them above the trigger they will not be auto-enrolled in either job. I would be interested if the Minister could comment on that.

As so much has been said already, I will ask just a small number of questions of the Minister. The DWP document I mentioned noted—and the Minister reinforced a version of this in his speech—that the Government used three principles in reviewing the automatic enrolment thresholds. The first of these is whether the right people are being brought into pension saving. Can the Minister tell the Committee how the Government reached the conclusion that excluding another 170,000 low-paid workers from the benefits of auto-enrolment met the condition that the right people are being brought into pension saving?

Secondly, with a trigger of £9,440, the target population for auto-enrolment is around 10 million individuals, of which only 37% are women; going up to £10,000, that falls slightly to 36%. When the Minister considers that figure, which came from the DWP’s excitingly named document, and the high proportion of those excluded who are women, is he satisfied that the Government’s approach to auto-enrolment is serving women workers well?

Finally, the paper argues that workers paid below the earnings trigger are likely to be able to achieve their target replacement rates through the single-tier pension if they remain low earners, and it may therefore not be beneficial to direct income from working life into workplace pension savings. If an individual earning £9,999 a year has an option to contribute to a DC scheme, should she take it?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, first, both the noble Baronesses referred to the speed with which we have gone through the Order Paper. In fact, that caught all sides on the hop, and apologies are due all round. The responsibility, of course, lies in the preceding orders going too speedily. However, I am grateful to both noble Baronesses, who, in the exchanges we have had over many sittings on the Pensions Bill, have demonstrated their incredible grasp and knowledge of these complex areas, and have spoken passionately about the impact upon women in particular. I will come to these points, and respond to them as best I can.

One of the key things I said in the concluding remarks of my speech was that we recognise that setting these thresholds is a balancing act and that there is no right or wrong answer. It is therefore right that there should be a debate and that it has become an annual debate. It is an affirmative instrument and therefore any changes that are made annually have to come before your Lordships’ House for consideration. That is the right way to do it.

The other point of context we need to acknowledge, which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, was good enough to make, is that the figures for auto-enrolment, which I accept came out of the Turner commission, which in turn came out of the Pensions Act 2008 under the previous Government, have been impressive. Significant progress has been made in encouraging the right people to save for their retirement. In pursuing that, we are absolutely on common ground.

It might be helpful if I went through some of the figures that we have for the number of people affected. Raising the 2014-15 value of the automatic enrolment trigger from £9,440 to £10,000 will exclude around 170,000 individuals, of whom around 120,000—69%—are women. Raising the 2013-14 value of the automatic enrolment trigger from £8,105 to £9,440 excluded around 420,000 individuals, of whom 300,000—72%—are women. I am going back through these numbers because it is a rough way of getting back to the calculation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked me whether I agreed with. Raising the 2013 value of the automatic enrolment trigger from £7,475 to £8,105 excluded around 100,000 people, 82% of whom were women. Finally, raising the 2011-12 value of the automatic enrolment trigger from £5,035—in 2006-07 terms—to £7,475 excluded 600,000 individuals, 78% of whom were women. If one calculates those figures, one begins to recognise the numbers that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, presented to us.

However, it is not so simple as to say that 70,000 women would be in automatic enrolment if their part-time earnings were brought together. I realise that there is a big education job to be done here, because many women who are underneath the threshold need to realise that if they are above £5,772 in terms of the lower earnings limit, they can opt in and therefore get the benefits that would accrue from that.

[Baroness Drake]

Does the Minister agree that we do not ask the rest of the population to opt in to get the benefits of pension saving and an employer contribution? Why should we ask women to opt in to get the benefit, when all the evidence is that most people will not opt in? Why do we discriminate against lower earners in that way? We do not expect a £40,000-earning male to overcome his own inertia. Why do we expect a £9,000-earning woman to overcome her own inertia?

[Lord Bates]

I take the point, but the threshold needs to be drawn somewhere. That is the discussion that we are having. There has to be a threshold somewhere because, below a certain level, the benefits of saving will not be as acute for the retirement pension. The question that we are debating is where that threshold should be set. We are not saying that this is a gender issue; we are saying that it is a threshold and income issue.

The noble Baroness is perhaps being a little harsh on this Government’s record on auto-enrolment, but it is worth pointing out that we have also taken a very large number of people, mostly female, out of tax altogether. The rises in the personal allowance since 2010 have taken 2.7 million people out of paying tax. The majority of those people will be female. That is a very positive thing, but I accept that more needs to be done to encourage people to save for their retirement. The benefits of the 3% employer contribution, which the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, pointed to, will come when the scheme is fully implemented in 2018 and the thresholds and contribution levels increase. At the moment it is 1%, but it is very important that people engage at that 1% level so that their savings can rise as the employer contribution increases.

Of course, in addition to the employer contribution increasing, the employee contribution will rise, and many people who do not make pension savings point to the fact that affordability is the key issue that they are wrestling with.

17:29

[Baroness Drake]

I am sorry for interrupting, but I feel really strongly about this point and I shall come back to it year after year. We are, admittedly, phasing in the contribution rate. However, you cannot get the benefit of the 3% contribution rate unless you are also enrolled at the 1% contribution rate.

[Lord Bates]

I do not think we disagree with that. I accept that you need to enrol in—to opt in to—the scheme. We are saying that you can opt in and get tax relief from the lower earnings limit of £5,772, and that your employer will have to do that from £10,000. Therefore, we agree on that. Persistent low earners tend to find that the state pension alone provides them with a retirement income similar to that which they would have had during their working life.

[Baroness Drake]

The noble Lord is arguing that if someone is poor all their life they can make do on the single tier and we are not obliged to give them the opportunity to build up a little capital—is that the policy of the coalition Government?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Baroness knows that is not our argument. We are encouraging people to save, as far as possible, but we recognise that savings, and how people spend their disposable income, is a choice. At what point does it become an automatic responsibility of the employer to enrol an employee in the scheme? That is what we are debating, not whether people are being encouraged to save. I hope that there is genuine cross-party agreement on this, coming out of the Turner commission, of which the noble Baroness was a distinguished member.

Of course, the whole objective is to increase savings across society. Thirteen million people are not saving enough for their retirement and we want that figure to improve. We want to ensure that as many people as possible are automatically enrolled. The Government believe that the decision on lower earnings is a decision for each person to take, and I hope they will take advantage of it.

[Baroness Drake]

The noble Lord is defending arguments that are untrue. Auto-enrolment does not work on the basis of it being a decision for individuals. They are put in, they have to come out. They have the choice to come out, but they are put in in the first place. These women are not getting the advantages of auto-enrolment. The point of inertia is that it is not based on informed choice; it is based on the assumption that the individual does this because it is in their best interest.

[Lord Bates]

We accept that. However, basically we are talking about the same issue: whether people have to opt out when they are put in an auto-enrolled scheme. They have the opportunity to decide to opt out. If they are above £5,772 they have the opportunity to opt in. I take the point that the threshold has to be set somewhere. Having looked at all the evidence, this is where the Government have come down—for this year. As the scheme gathers pace, more information will be available to us and we will be able to make that information available to your Lordships and have it influence decisions.

[Baroness Drake]

I do not want to be too difficult. However, the Secretary of State has stated clearly that this is driven by his view that people should not be auto-enrolled into pensions until they start paying tax. That is not doing a balancing act; that has been the Government’s consistent position since 2010. The Hansard record shows that I keep asking the question, “Are you going to keep tracking the tax threshold, because if you keep doing that you will exclude more and more women?”. That is not a balancing act. If you did a balancing act, you would say, “What is the balance between that approach and the number of women excluded?”.

The Government have locked themselves in, both by the Secretary of State’s statement and by their behaviour since 2010, when they said that people who do not pay tax should not have the advantage of auto-enrolment. The benefit of releasing them from a certain level of tax is reduced by the fact that they lose the employer’s contribution, and we are now getting to a point where the gain from the increase in the tax threshold is less than the loss of the 3% of the employer’s contribution. So over their lifetime, the low-paid person is actually worse off.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, before the Minister answers that, I asked him whether he felt that the way in which the Government have designed the service served women well. His defence appeared to be that there has to be a line somewhere. The point I was trying to put to him is that the Government have designed this scheme in such a way that only a third of its target population are women; in other words, they have designed a scheme that will benefit two men for every woman. Does he feel that the way the Government have chosen to design the scheme benefits women?

[Lord Bates]

No more or less than raising the personal tax allowance thresholds is a policy that is designed to disproportionately benefit women compared to men. When the tax threshold goes up from £7,475 to £10,000, that is a massive benefit to women, particularly in lower income positions. That is money coming into their households, so they can decide what to do with it. Anyone with earnings over £5,772 will retain the right to opt in, as I have already said, with employer contributions.

The Pensions Act requires the Secretary of State to review the thresholds each tax year. That is a discussion which takes place. There is a strong argument that says there is synergy there between personal tax allowances at the £10,000 level, helping employers and employees to understand where that mark falls, but in no way does that guarantee what the policy will be going forward. It will be for the policy to be announced and the review to take place and the instruments to come forward next year.

I am trying to work my way through the many questions that the noble Baronesses have put to me. I am not sure whether I have answered all the points.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I will let the Minister off the first two, if only on the grounds that I am unlikely to elicit an answer that I will find helpful. But my last question was very specific: if an individual earning just less than £10,000 a year had an opportunity to contribute to a DC scheme, does the Minister think that she should take it?

[Lord Bates]

The view is that this will be a personal choice for the individual faced with that challenge. It is a specific point. I know that the noble Baroness feels very strongly about this.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I am not asking this question because I feel strongly about it; I am trying to test the Government’s argument that the reason low earners should not be auto-enrolled is that it is not worth saving small sums of money. Do the Government assume that same stricture should apply to private pensions as well as to auto-enrolment?

[Lord Bates]

Each individual’s situation will be different. In some cases, they will have partners who will be earning more and therefore they will take a household decision to take advantage of the same scheme. For some people, that will not be the case and therefore they will not. We are saying that we want there to be a scheme. We want it to be as simple and straightforward as possible so that as many employers and employees as possible can get full benefit from it, and so that people can get into the habit of saving. It will be up for annual review. There needs to be much more education to ensure that all people who earn below that threshold realise that they can opt in should they wish to and should their personal circumstances make that the right choice for them.

I have tried to address as many as possible of the questions that have been put forward by the noble Baronesses, for which I thank them.

Motion agreed.

Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold (Revocations, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Order 2014

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

17:39

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold (Revocations, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

[Lord Bates (Con)]

My Lords, in my view the Statutory Sick Pay Percentage Threshold (Revocations, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Order 2014 is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

I am aware that there are minor typographical errors in the draft order before the Committe. These do not affect the meaning of the order and they will be put right if Parliament approves the order and it is signed and reprinted.

By way of background, every year, more than 130 million working days are lost to sickness absence with huge associated costs to employers, employees and the wider economy. For example, sickness absences cost the economy around £15 billion a year, predominantly in lost output. Employers face an annual bill of around £9 billion for sick pay and associated costs, and individuals miss out on £4 billion a year through lost earnings. In addition to this, around 300,000 people a year fall out of work and into the welfare system because of health-related issues.

The state spends around £12 billion a year on health-related benefits and £2 billion a year on healthcare, sick pay reimbursement and forgone taxes. The levels of sickness absence and the effect on individuals, business and the economy are clearly a cause for concern and the Government must do what they can to address these issues. We know that, in general, being in work improves well-being. There is a strong correlation between remaining in work and positive health and well-being outcomes. This is why, back in 2010, the Government commissioned an independent review of sickness absence to investigate the current system. The aim of the review was to find ways to minimise the loss of work through ill health and to reduce the burden on and costs to employers, individuals and the state.

As noble Lords will be aware, the review was published in 2011. It made a number of observations and recommendations to improve the effectiveness of restoring people to work including: the abolition of the statutory sick pay percentage threshold scheme, which offers limited reimbursement to some employers for statutory sick pay costs; the creation of an independent, state-funded health and advice service available to employees, employers and general practitioners; and tax incentives to encourage active sickness absence management.

By way of background, employers have a responsibility to pay statutory sick pay to qualifying employees who are absent from work due to ill health. The weekly rate of statutory sick pay is currently £86.70 and it is payable for up to 28 weeks. The percentage threshold scheme allows employers to claim reimbursement of statutory sick pay costs when they reach above a set percentage—in this case, 13%—of their monthly national insurance liability.

Returning to the review, the Government agreed with the reviewers, Dame Carol Black and David Frost CBE, that the percentage threshold scheme can be seen to financially reward employers where sickness absence is highest and provides no incentive to manage sickness absence in the workforce. This was not the intention of the scheme when it was introduced in 1995. Therefore, the Government have accepted the recommendation to abolish the statutory sick pay percentage threshold scheme. This is part of a wider programme of measures to encourage a more proactive approach to managing sickness absence in the workplace by both employers and employees. The abolition of the scheme gives us the means to invest into establishing the recommended state health and work assessment and advisory service. To be known as the health and work service, it will be implemented in Great Britain in 2014 and will ensure that public funds are used to tackle sickness absence in a more effective and targeted way than the percentage threshold scheme.

The proposed new service has been broadly welcomed by business. For the first time many smaller businesses will have access to work-focused occupational health assessment and advice, which will support an earlier return to work for their employees. To further help employers, the Government are planning a tax exemption for any health-related interventions funded by employers for their employees, as was recommended by the independent review.

In conclusion, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the money currently spent each year on the percentage threshold scheme will be more effective when reinvested into the new health and work service. We expect a reduction in lost working days and an earlier return to work for many employees. In return, this will bring benefits to business, employees and the wider economy. I commend the order to the Committee.

17:45

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I woke yesterday morning to hear on the radio an announcement about a wonderful new scheme the Government are planning to introduce called the health and work service, which would cover England, Wales and Scotland. I wonder what happens in Northern Ireland. I am not sure I caught that. This scheme would offer voluntary medical assessments and treatment plans for employees. There was nothing in that bulletin to inform the listener that this would be paid for by scrapping the percentage threshold scheme, or PTS, which enables employers to reclaim some of the costs of statutory sick pay, or SSP, from the state. I will be charitable and assume that this is because Parliament has not yet approved this order. I know that Ministers are loath to let anything slip out to the media before Parliament has had the opportunity to scrutinise it in great detail—although I confess that, somehow, the BBC had got hold of that side of the story on its website a little later.

These regulations abolish the percentage threshold scheme, and we are assured that stakeholders welcomed the change, apart from one employer representative group which was concerned about the impact on small employers of removing the remaining element of SSP reimbursement. We were told that the average amount claimed under the scheme in 2009-10 was £500 per year, per claimant—that is, per employer claiming. That may not sound a lot, but the impact assessment also tells us that micro-employers, those with fewer than 10 workers, receive 70% of the recovery, and £500 can be a lot of money to a micro-employer.

I know of a church in Durham, where I live, the sole employee of which is a rather wonderful youth worker; the vicar, of course, is paid by the diocese. Sadly, the youth worker has been off sick for some months. It was a big decision for the church to hire her, but it decided to dip into its reserves to hire a youth worker to work not just with the children in the church but children in the local community. Unfortunately, she has developed a condition which means that she has been off sick for some months. She is brilliant and the church does not want to lose her, but money is tight. Thanks to the PTS, it has been able to get some of the SSP back, so it can afford to pay a locum to do at least some of the work. At the moment, a locum youth worker is running a wonderful club for a few weeks for year 6 children in the neighbourhood to help them prepare for moving up to secondary school. However, my point is that £500 to that church is a lot of money. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government have talked to micro-employers about the likely impact of this change on their operations? According to the Black review of sickness absence, micro-employers represent 82% of employers; obviously, they represent a smaller percentage of employees, but that is a lot of employers.

The argument made in the Black review is that PTS compensates mainly small employers for “higher-than-average sickness absence” but fails to promote attendance management; I think that was the point the Minister was making. That seems to me to fail to distinguish between two things that were rammed home to me in business school in assessing sickness absence in an organisation: the number of periods of sickness and the number of days of sickness. If you have a lot of periods of sickness, a lot of employees off for a small number of days, that can tell you something about whether people are taking sick leave a lot and it can tell you something about morale. The total number of days can be completely skewed in a small organisation by one person having a very serious illness. I did not see that distinction made. A good example would be this church, which would look as though it had a terrible sickness record but that is because one youth worker happened to develop a condition.

I am trying to draw this out, because I wonder if the Minister could help me to understand. The assumption is that those who get most of the money are small organisations with higher than average sickness absences, which therefore fail to promote attendance management. I wonder whether the evidence backs that up. Can the Minister help me to understand that rationale? The impact assessment says that the abolition of the PTS removes a transfer of some £50 million from the Exchequer to businesses and that the new health and work advisory service will generate a net value of around £70 million for employers—£120 million in benefits minus £50 million in intervention costs, I gather. There will also be a presumed benefit to the state.

The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that that means that all the current spend on the PTS of £50 million is being recycled into the new scheme. Can the Minister confirm that? The assumption is therefore that businesses are not losing out. However, if that is true, what calculations have been made as to how evenly the gains and losses will be distributed? After all, if 70% of the benefit of the PTS goes to micro-employers, is it assumed that 70% of the benefits of the new service will be enjoyed by micro-employers? The impact assessment says that smaller employers are expected to benefit disproportionately, as they are less likely to have their own rehabilitation and occupational health services, but it did not quantify that. Can the Minister tell the Committee if any assessment was made? If so, what is the distinction? Within smaller employers is a large group: micro-employers are those who have fewer than 10 workers. Was any distinction made between those two categories?

A crucial question is whether the fact that in future employers will bear the full cost of SSP is likely to have any effect on their willingness to hire or retain staff whom they may judge likely to need it. In other words, will they discriminate against staff who have a potential health issue or have had a health record in the past that gives them cause for concern? The impact analysis does not address that directly, but under the heading “Key Assumptions/Sensitivities/Risks” it includes the following assumption:

“The removal of the PTS doesn’t precipitate (illegal) discrimination by employers against employees with poor sickness absence records”.

Can the Minister tell the Committee what evidence underpins that assumption? I am not saying that that will happen but I would be glad to know why the noble Lord, Lord Freud, felt sufficiently confident that it would not to sign off the impact assessment without that assumption spelt out in it.

My other question about these regulations relates to whether there is any risk that employees will be less likely to receive SSP under the new system. In consequence of the abolition of the PTS, the Government have also produced a set of regulations which have not yet taken effect, which propose to abolish the requirement on employers to maintain records for each employee relating to sickness absence and the payment of SSP for three years after the end of the tax year where SSP was paid. I refer to the Statutory Sick Pay (Maintenance of Records) (Revocation) Regulations 2014.

Can the Minister tell us what risk assessment the Government have undertaken as to the likelihood of employers not paying SSP correctly or at all once the record-keeping requirement is abolished alongside the order we are discussing today? The Explanatory Note which covers both orders tells us that HMRC will retain the power to require an employer to produce records to show them that SSP has been paid appropriately. What discussions has the department had with HMRC to satisfy itself that there will not be an unintended consequence of some employees not getting the money to which they are entitled? The Explanatory Note also says:

“Stakeholder engagement found that employers maintain records of sickness absence for payroll, tax and other staff management reasons”.

Can the Minister confirm that those stakeholders include individuals from or representing micro-enterprises?

Finally, the 2011 Black review on sickness absence recommended that the Government should carry out further research into the reasons behind the significant number of people claiming ill health benefits who come straight from work, especially from smaller employers. That is the earlier Black review. It recommended that the Government carry out further research into the reason why significant numbers of people claiming ill health benefits who come straight from work appear not to have been paid sick pay by their employer beforehand. Has that been done?

My very final question is that the impact assessment notes that HMRC periodically visits businesses to see if their payroll is running smoothly and it reviews payroll documentation including SSP and sickness absence records. Can the Minister clarify whether on those visits HMRC will still routinely review SSP records? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Lord Bates]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions and for the case study she gave us from the diocese of Durham, which of course I have a strong affinity with and want to see everything possible done to help. In considering that, the best thing that could happen to any small employer in that situation is that the employee returns to the workplace. The question is whether, through this reallocation of the resource from the threshold scheme to the health and work service, it is more likely that the person concerned will find a pathway back to the employer and the workplace, which is the best solution all round. Our view is that it will and that it is a better use of the resource.

The noble Baroness asked how the £50 million that is currently paid under the threshold scheme will be allocated. It will be used to fund the health and work scheme and the tax exemption for interventions which was announced in the Autumn Statement. Where interventions are recommended to get somebody back to work which incur a cost—for example, the provision of physiotherapy or a particular piece of equipment or a change in working practices—the employer will be able to offset that cost. Many large national or multinational companies have sophisticated HR departments which seek to address all these issues to get employees back into the workplace as soon as possible. However, micro-employers do not have that facility. They will be able to take advantage of the new scheme and make some savings as a result of it. That is one of the reasons why it is widely welcomed by them. Micro-employers will benefit more than larger employers for the reasons I have outlined.

Less than 10% of micro-employers make claims under the percentage threshold scheme, which raises another point that the scheme is so complicated and complex that many micro-employers who could benefit from it do not take advantage of it at present because they do not appreciate that it is there. We hope that with the publicity surrounding the new way of working through GPs and employers and employees, more will take advantage of the service, and that will be to the benefit of all. Micro-employers currently receive around 70% of the money paid out under the scheme. The average claim under the scheme is less than £500 a year, but this masks considerable variation. For example, around 25% of micro-employers claimed less than £200 in 2008-09.

The noble Baroness asked about a particular church employee. The health and work service will support the employee and the employer in the diocese to try to find a plan to enable the person concerned to return to work under the new scheme. She also asked why the scheme will not apply to Northern Ireland. However, this is a fully devolved matter for Northern Ireland and therefore it will make its own decisions on how the scheme will operate. The health and work scheme will apply just to England and Wales.

The noble Baroness asked about the abolition of associated SSP record-keeping. Employers will still need to maintain SSP records for pay-as-you-earn and tax purposes. There is no evidence to suggest that employers will not meet their SSP obligations as a result of record-keeping abolition. The HMRC statutory payments disputes process will continue to ensure that employers meet their obligations. There will be ongoing monitoring of disputes and the actions which are taken.

I think that that covers many of the points which were made. However, the noble Baroness may be about to tell me—

17:59

[Baroness Sherlock]

I would hate to disappoint the Minister and I thank him for going through so many of my questions.

I have a couple of specific points. His answer to my concerns about the record-keeping point was that the Government assume that since employers keep records anyway, there is no reason to assume they will cease to keep them. They say that in its routine visits HMRC currently inspects payroll records, including SSP records. Is it the intention of the Government that it will continue to inspect SSP records on these visits, even though companies are not specifically required to keep them in the form that is described here? The suspense is killing me—I look forward to hearing that answer.

Can the Minister explain again the position of micro-employers? My understanding was that 70% of the benefit was going to micro-employers, but I think he said it would be only 10% of the claims. Perhaps he could help me to understand that. The point I was trying to draw him out on, about the fact that the new service will more than compensate for the loss of the PTS, was that I can see that across populations that is true but if, as a micro-employer, you have only one or two employees and they cannot be got back to work because of the nature of their conditions, they will lose out. Was any thought given to whether they might be protected from that in some way?

[Lord Bates]

The noble Baroness asked about the HMRC visits. I am delighted to give her the answer, which is yes. She also asked for clarification on the 10% figure. I said that less than 10% of micro-employers make claims under the percentage threshold scheme, which I think was the point she was asking for clarification on.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that the abolition of the percentage threshold scheme is important so that savings can be reinvested in the new health and work service, which will benefit both employers and employees in reducing lost working days and increasing economic output. I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

NHS: Competition

Monday 10th February 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

18:03

Asked by

[Lord Turnberg]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the place and value of competition in the National Health Service.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate the place and value of competition in the NHS. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that I received notice that I had secured this debate rather late last week. As a result, we have a rather select and distinguished band of noble Lords speaking today.

I want to make the case that we now have an unhealthy degree of competition, but in doing so I do not want to suggest that competition per se is necessarily a bad thing; nor do I want to get sidetracked into an ideological argument about the relative merits of free markets versus collective action. I want to try to tease out what the evidence really is for the value of competition in the NHS.

It is probably a basic human urge to compete. When I was a physician working in a hospital in Salford and when I was dean of Manchester’s medical school—here I express my interests in both—I have no hesitation in admitting that I was competitive in wanting my hospital and my medical school to be the best in the country if not in the world. It so happens that Salford Royal hospital is now lauded as being one of the most advanced in the way that it provides its services—it has obviously taken advantage of my absence to do great things.

However, when one comes to the National Health Service—that is, the national service—naked competition can become very counterproductive. We can certainly have too much of a good thing and the unhealthy degree of competition that we have now is interfering with our need for that collaboration and co-operation that are so vital for optimal patient care, to say nothing of its impact on integration as I will describe.

It is not as if we have never had competition before now; indeed, the previous Labour Government introduced the principle of opening up services to private providers. However, we took a devastating leap forward, or more accurately backward, with the health Act 2012 and the unloved Section 75, which placed a virtual obligation on commissioners to go out to tender for any and every service. It is that obligation that distinguishes it from what went before. We need to get the balance right between healthy and unhealthy competition. I shall give some of the many examples of where we have not got it right in a moment or two.

Those who promote competition in health services say that it improves patient care and efficiency, but what is the evidence for that? Does it work and, if so, in what circumstances and for what particular services? As one might expect, there have been a number of academic studies to try to tease this out and the results have been far from conclusive. The Office of Health Economics report in 2012 was very cautious and found that while some aspects were improved, others were made worse. Let us listen to those who have done the research. Dr Light wrote in the Journal of Health Politics:

“Promotion of competition is guided by political and ideological considerations and is not supported by any scientific evidence”.

Valentina Zigante and her colleagues have written:

“The ideology of competition and choice is running way ahead of the evidence that it improves efficiency, equity or quality”.

Dixon and Le Grand have said that there is,

“no evidence that the choice policy has resulted in significant changes for the patient or to patient pathways”.

However, we do not need to rely on academic studies to recognise the difficulties that we now have with the competition agenda: the problems are absolutely clear in the many day-to-day examples in the NHS. One only has to look at the gross case of Poole and Bournemouth, where everyone involved—the public, local authority, the doctors, nurses and managers—all agreed that amalgamation of the trusts’ services was essential if they were to be able to provide a safe and efficient accident and emergency service, avoid the £8 million black hole that was looming and save £14 million a year. After reportedly spending some £6 million on legal fees and gathering mountains of documentation, the whole thing was blocked by the Competition Commission. You do not need too many examples like that for managers around the country to run a mile before engaging in similar rational mergers or use of resources.

There are many other examples. Let us take the case of the CCGs in Blackpool which had found a better and cheaper way of dealing with patients with headaches than having to send them to a hospital, only to be challenged by Spire private healthcare for not sending them enough cases. The cost to the CCGs in money and time of having to sift through mountains of records to fight the case was very high and will certainly make others think twice before going down the same route. There are reports that in Bristol, the unified cancer care pathway has been put on hold, while at King’s College Hospital the plan to integrate care for the elderly with the local council has been stopped by competition law.

It is not as if this bonanza for the lawyers was not predicted. In our debate on the Section 75 regulations last April, several speakers, including myself, warned of just this sort of costly litigation. As Sir David Nicholson said to the Health Select Commons Committee recently, the NHS is getting,

“bogged down in a morass of competition law”.

Despite all the reassurances given by the noble Earl when we debated the statutory instrument last April, managers in the health service are running scared of coming up against competition law whenever they set up their contracts for services. It is hardly surprising, according to a recent survey in the Health Service Journal, that nine out of 10 chief executives are making their top priority the cutting back of competition rules, and it is not difficult to see why they feel obliged to avoid litigation when they have Monitor breathing down their necks, as well as the Office of Fair Trading backed by UK public procurement regulations and EU competition law looming above them. It is of little use to managers that the kindly David Bennett of Monitor is hinting that he will not pursue them if they take a sensible approach and do not go out to tender for anything and everything, because in practice the law is biting hard.

It is hard, too, to see how multiple contracts with a range of providers can fail to impact on the need to focus specialised services in a smaller number of hospitals or to centralise scarce facilities. These rational and laudable aims can hardly avoid being inhibited by the drive to competition. And, of course, there is the knotty issue of integrating care across the hospital/community divide, which everyone wants to see but which will be inhibited by competition for the different elements of what should be seamless care. There seems little doubt that uncontrolled competition can result in a fragmentation of services that simply frustrates the need for a strong and coherent set of services.

What can be done about it? We have to tackle the legal driver of competition law which is creating such an expensive diversion of resources and manpower away from more important work like caring for patients. It is no use saying that commissioners have the freedom given by reassurances from Monitor on the one hand when they find that they have to defend themselves from legal action taken by private providers on the other. I have only one question for the Minister. Will he help to obviate this legal quagmire into which we seem to have blundered by repealing this onerous and damaging set of regulations and starting again with a less destructive set?

18:12

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister is not feeling got at, and I am extremely pleased to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will be speaking in the gap. I think that the lack of speakers in this debate bears out what we knew during the passage of the Bill—that this is a hellishly complicated matter. I wonder, indeed, where the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, are. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is here today, but she is now bound to support what the Minister has to say. Where are the noble Lords who helped to get the current competition regime through your Lordships’ House and on to the statute book two years ago, and why are they not here to explain how well they think it is working and that their support for it is therefore justified?

We know that people are fearful, as my noble friend has explained. They are fearful on the ground. They do not know how to express their worries, and often they realise too late that something precious has been undermined when the decisions their doctor is making may have something to do with Spire Healthcare or Richard Branson’s Virgin Care on the bottom line than what might be best for them—or that, at the least, those two things are being balanced against each other.

We know that competition comes in many flavours. Peer competition, as expressed by my noble friend, for clinical excellence is fine. Indeed, I have long championed the provision of social enterprises, and what value they can bring to some healthcare as being good for everyone concerned—not least the taxpayer because 5% to 10% is not being siphoned off into the pockets of shareholders across the world. That profit is being ploughed back into the social purpose of the provider and innovation. Indeed, we know that there has always been a mixed market in the provision of healthcare, and always as part of a planned process of provision.

Competition in various forms between NHS providers has been tried, as with the wide choice of acute providers for routine operations. As my noble friend has said, by 2010 the Labour Government had come to accept that there may be some occasions when an incumbent NHS provision could not be brought to the required standard and an open competition might be best. Tactical use of open competition could therefore be a tool. However, the Health and Social Care Act was always about competition as a strategy which essentially sees healthcare as a commodity and, essentially, Part 3 of the Act brings into play the ideas that have been used for the privatisation of utilities in the past. We went through this at length and, on this side of the House, we predicted what might happen.

The NHS has now tendered three-quarters of new contracts to competition. Section 75 regulations were made under the Health and Social Care Act in April last year. They appear to force competition on to the NHS in contravention of ministerial promises made during the stormy passage of the Act itself. At a critical juncture, the then Health Secretary Andrew Lansley wrote to the new local—as they became—clinical commissioning groups, telling them that,

“I know many of you have read that you will be forced to fragment services, or put services out to tender. This is absolutely not the case. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that you as commissioners, not the Secretary of State and not regulators, should decide when and how competition should be used to serve your patients’ interests”.

He told the House of Commons:

“There is absolutely nothing in the Bill that promotes or permits the transfer of NHS activities to the private sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/13; col. 169.]

Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, promised us here in your Lordships’ House:

“Clinicians will be free to commission services in the way they consider best. We intend to make it clear that commissioners will have a full range of options”.—[Official Report, 6/3/13; col. 1691.]

However, when the regulations emerged, there was a storm of protest. The noble Earl repeated:

“It has never been and is absolutely not the Government’s intention to make all NHS services subject to competitive tendering”.—[Official Report, 12/11/13; col. GC266.]

Can the Minister put a percentage on what he thinks is a reasonable amount to go out to tender and what he thinks is not a reasonable amount to do so?

Critics, including leading lawyers, say the redrafted regulations did no such thing; they did not fulfil the promise that the noble Earl had said that they would. They still enforced compulsory markets in the NHS, regardless of clinical or local wishes and in contravention of government promises. Indeed, my noble friend has given some examples.

In the debate on 24 April 2013, Liberal Democrat health spokesperson, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, told the House of Lords:

“Commissioners will not be forced to tender”.—[Official Report, 24/4/13; col. 1486.]

Indeed, the noble Earl backed him up, saying that,

“it is NHS commissioners and no one else who will decide whether, where and how competition in service provision should be introduced”.—[Official Report, 24/4/13; col. 1508.]

The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told the Lords:

“We have learnt in the debates in this House to trust the noble Earl, Lord Howe”.—[Official Report, 24/4/13; col. 1496.]

Well this is a matter not of trust or otherwise, but of whether the Government’s course is the right one. We believe that the evidence now shows that, indeed, it is not. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, as my noble friend has said.

Is the Minister now prepared to release the Government’s legal advice on this matter, which has not been released so far despite requests from various people, including my noble friend Lord Hunt? Overall, the impact of the Health and Social Care Act has been negative, as it has deflected money and energy from clinical care into administration. We have seen the fears from CCGs around what Section 75 means. It appears to mean—certainly, this is what many CCGs understand—that almost every service has to be competitively tendered.

We have seen a CCG offering the biggest NHS contract in history, in Cambridge, and making a thorough mess of that process. We have seen claims by a CCG in Oxford to be leading on competition for outcomes, and, again, stalling when confronted by providers. My noble friend has also mentioned what has been happening in Blackpool, in relation to Spire. I would like the Minister’s comments on what has happened in Blackpool, and what he thinks are the implications of the Spire challenge, and Monitor’s support for it.

I also want to ask the noble Earl about the amount of money that has had to be spent in Bournemouth and Poole on the merging of the hospitals there. The merger seems to be completely justified on clinical grounds; however millions of pounds have been spent on lawyers and paperwork. This is one of the hospitals that already have a deficit: the merger is urgently needed. Does the noble Earl think that can be justified in today’s cash-strapped NHS?

We have heard from many people that they believe that the requirement for competition is hindering the need for integration and co-operation—as we said it would. The people who seem to be benefiting most from the new regulations and the new NHS, as structured by the Government, are competition lawyers. They are being allowed to call the shots, it would appear. Most of all, the vision expressed by Mr Lansley in 2006 for a regulated market for our healthcare seems to be losing its supporters and its driving force is gone. Indeed, rumours abound that the once-enthusiastic Liberal Democrat fellow travellers are now seeing the light. Much of what Mr Lansley wanted is being rolled back or ignored.

The problem is that the market requires no strategic direction because it has its own impetus, which is to make profits where they can best be made. The NHS needs a strategic direction. The Government, however, are incapable of delivering that strategic direction because in the passage of this Act they have given away the levers that would allow them to do so. They can make statements, they can make plans, they can pass strategies, but they no longer have the levers to be able to deliver them.

What does the future hold? Would the Minister speculate about what the next Conservative manifesto might offer the NHS? Noble Lords may remember that the Prime Minister promised that there would be no more tiresome, meddlesome top-down restructuring. That statement may have been wiped off the internet by the Conservative Party, but we remember it very well. What does the Conservative Party think that it might bring forward in its next manifesto? I finish by quoting what David Nicholson, the retiring head of NHS England, has said about this:

“We are bogged down in a morass of competition law. We have competition lawyers all over the place telling us what to do and causing enormous difficulty”.

He also said,

“All of [the politicians who drew up the Health and Social Care Act] wanted competition as a tool to improve quality for patients. That’s what they intended to happen, and we haven’t got that…”.

18:23

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for being allowed to speak in the gap, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, on securing this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, may wish to know that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, had hoped to speak in this debate, but is speaking instead on the Immigration Bill in the main Chamber.

I am pleased that he and other Liberal Democrats persuaded the Government to make some key changes to Part 3, on procurement, in the Health and Social Care Act, which limited private practice in the NHS and beefed up Monitor with regard to the promotion of competition, in order to provide reassurance that other factors could and should be taken into consideration.

This nuance in the debate is often lost by the two opposing views of pro- and anti-competition. Not all competition is bad, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, has pointed out. The Labour Government were quite content to have it in the NHS. I, for example, was using Healthcare at Home, which was contracted by a number of hospitals prior to the coalition Government to provide domiciliary support for patients injecting medication at home. The service and support were excellent, and the economies of scale, I am sure, enabled them to provide that at a good price. The ancillary contracts are, I hope, less contentious than deciding how to contract out core clinical services: those issues are justly more sensitive. That is why I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his perseverance last year in pushing for amendments to the regulations to ensure that cost is not the only guide to winning a procurement contract. Transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory processes must be evidenced to support procurement decisions.

The new guidance will remove doubt about where quality and competition interact, and Monitor’s role in taking the lead over the OFT and the Competition Commission is a positive step forward. The Monitor guidance on the National Health Service (Procurement, Patient Choice and Competition) Regulations 2013 makes this abundantly clear. For commissioners, this will mean a considerable change in approach to procurement. Finally, the guidance is so explicit that cost alone is not the route to follow that even the competition lawyers will have to take note. Patient need, quality, and improvement of service are key factors that must be taken into account.

The EU directive on public procurement due to be implemented during this year reinforces this. The new regime for health service contracts requires that,

“award criteria can take into consideration important elements in the provision of health services including quality, continuity, accessibility, comprehensiveness of services and innovation”.

Further, the directive makes it clear that,

“greater emphasis is put on considering environmental and social issues in public procurements … Simply considering price, rather than quality, as the only award criterion will be discouraged”.

I hope that this will provide clarity for future CCGs as they start to consider whether they need to tender.

Finally, we should remember the core principle in competition and choice in the provision of healthcare services in the NHS in England, which is that competition should be employed where it serves the interests of patients; it must not be an end in itself. NHS England has said that competition is just one means of improving the quality and efficiency of NHS clinical services and securing value for money. I would ask my noble friend the Minister, given all the noise we are hearing at the moment about problems with competition lawyers and others disagreeing about where the lines are drawn, whether the EU directive guidance and the Monitor guidance will clarify matters enough to remove that doubt. If that is the case, I hope that improved transparency, a focus on patient needs and proportionality will act as the guardians of our excellent services in the NHS.

18:27

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of an NHS foundation trust, as president of GS1 UK, and as a consultant trainer with Cumberlege Connections Ltd. I, too, welcome my noble friend’s debate and the opportunity to return to the issue of competition. I think that it has to be seen in a wider context. No one can be in any doubt about the pressure that the National Health Service is currently under, often because of conflicting policy objectives that the Government are setting. On the one hand, quality and safety demand more staff, but on the other hand, that must take place at a time when the NHS is in its worst financial position. The health service also has to face up to huge demographic pressures. However, the response so far has been to see a vast number of frail elderly people being admitted to hospital and then staying in too long because of a lack of appropriate community care and support. We have debated the urge for seven-day working in our hospitals, which is to be highly commended, but that is being jeopardised by the failure of primary care and social care to respond in parallel. Instead of leadership, co-ordination and partnership, the Lansley changes have bequeathed a dysfunctional system where essentially the Government have legislated for fragmentation—and fragmentation is certainly what has been delivered.

Clinical commissioning groups, often staffed by very good people working with the best will in the world, cover too small a population to be able to give strategic direction across a health economy. The local area teams of NHS England are focused exclusively on micro-management rather than leadership, under the weight of excessive performance management from NHS England headquarters. NHS England was itself promised autonomy, but is getting anything but. Its target-obsessed approach seems strangely at odds with the post-Francis culture that is required. Fragmentation at the local level seems to be matched by confusion that reigns at the national level. The Lansley “hands-off” model has been ripped up by the current Secretary of State, who intervenes at every turn. How else can we explain the weekly meetings that he has with the bosses of NHS England, Monitor and the CQC, all supposedly independent bodies? Independent, my foot.

On top of all this, we have competition, which we have debated many times. Of course, choice and competition have a role to play in the National Health Service—on that, I agree with my noble friends. Indeed, when in government I was involved in involving the private sector to help provide extra capacity, speed up hip replacements and cataract surgery, and reduce waiting times for the NHS. Moreover, I have no doubt whatever that where existing services have consistently underperformed, alternative providers, including the private sector, third sector, mutuals and social enterprises, are important as a way to turn things round. However, to conclude that market principles are a panacea is simply wrong. It is enforced competition and enforced marketisation that we on the opposition Benches are opposed to.

I know what the Minister is going to say. He has consistently told us when we have debated these issues that CCGs were free to commission services and would not have to create markets against the best interest of patients, but I remain of the view that Part 3 of the 2012 Act and the Section 75 regulations mandate the open tendering of services.

I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and welcome her to our debate. I say to her that while I accept that the Section 75 regulations were withdrawn and rewritten, my reading of them remains as I read them at the time: that, in the end, CCGs will essentially be forced to tender all services. That is certainly what the health service thinks. We can see already the impact of this. FOI requests have unearthed the fact that in the first six months of the new system, clinical commissioning groups had spent at least £5 million on external competition lawyers. We also know that NHS providers have reported a sharp rise in their legal bills as a result.

Both my noble friends have mentioned the intervention of the Office of Fair Trading, which is causing absolute havoc. We have the cases in Dorset and in Bristol. The impact of this has been the putting of a lot of sensible reconfiguration proposals into cold storage but, my goodness me, how much we need bold reconfiguration proposals to be implemented in order to provide high-quality, safe care. What has happened in Greater Manchester, where the move to centralise cancer services into fewer top-performing specialist centres is apparently in jeopardy because it is being claimed that it will be anti-competitive and reduce patient choice? My noble friend mentioned the Blackpool case, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that. My understanding is that the CCGs have had to hire administrative staff to collect thousands of documents, tracking every referral from GPs. What a complete waste of time and effort. I refer the noble Earl to a survey of hospital chiefs conducted by the Health Service Journal last December, in which 88% of them said that securing change to competition and choice rules should be a priority for the incoming chief executive officer of NHS England. What a lot of priorities he will have to face when he starts in April.

All this is well known both to the noble Earl’s department and to NHS England. I do not want to repeat what his honourable friend Norman Lamb said, because my noble friends have already done it, or the evidence that Sir David Nicholson gave to the Health Select Committee last November, when he highlighted the cost and frustration caused by the way in which competition law was being used.

I want to ask the noble Earl about the proposals that NHS England is putting forward to centralise specialist services in a small number of centres—or at least it has been said that that is what it is going to be doing. Can the noble Earl confirm that? Is he confident that such proposals will not lead to Office of Fair Trading interventions if he is reducing the number of specialist centres? In view of what Mr Lamb and Sir David have said, will the Government bring proposals to the House in the next Session to put this right? The Opposition stand ready to help the noble Earl make changes to legislation in this regard.

Clearly, competition has a place—I have no doubt about that. I stand by the work that I did to encourage some private sector involvement in order to get waiting times down. That is a very good example of when it is useful to use the private sector. But competition is not the be-all and end-all; it is not the panacea that some claim. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very reasoned argument. My response to her and to the noble Earl is that I know that we are getting guidance and further work is being done in this area, but the fact is that the health service thinks it has to tender almost all services. I am afraid that once you do that, in effect you have a competitive market. That is the problem we face. I hope very much that the noble Earl will tell us that the department and the Government will actually listen to the concerns which have been expressed by a considerable number of people in the NHS, NHS England and his own department.

18:36

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, for tabling this topic for debate. I will begin with three simple statements, to serve as mental marker posts, as it were, before I respond to the questions that have been raised.

First, amid the many changes that we made to NHS commissioning through the Health and Social Care Act, one area of the law that has not changed one iota is the law relating to competitive tendering. That law has been in place for a number of years; it has been governed by a European directive; and, as regards the rules governing NHS procurement, the Section 75 regulations change nothing at all.

Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, referred to “Mr Lansley’s agenda” on privatisation. There is no government agenda to privatise NHS services—quite the contrary. We made it illegal in the Health and Social Care Act for the Secretary of State, Monitor or NHS England to have a policy deliberately favouring the independent sector.

Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke of a deliberate policy of enforced competition and marketisation. I must correct him. It is NHS commissioners alone who will decide whether, where and how competition in service provision should be introduced. There are no obligations on commissioners to create or promote markets; nor are they required to fragment services against the interests of patients.

Those three points are key to understanding what the Government are doing and what we are not doing. I will now turn to the place and value of competition in the NHS, which has long existed. As the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, pointed out, patients have long exercised choice over where they receive services from. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, acknowledge that third sector and independent providers play an important part in providing NHS care; for example, in hospice care for terminally ill patients, mental health services and long-term nursing care for the frail elderly.

We have seen over the past decade the independent sector treatment centre programme and the introduction of payment by results in 2003, the advent of patient choice in 2006, and the transforming community services programme of 2008. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, that it was this changing landscape that introduced greater competition to the NHS; it was not the Health and Social Care Act. There is robust evidence from a variety of sources that quality-based competition can work to the benefit of patients, and I shall come on to cite that evidence in a moment.

The previous Administration put in place a set of rules to manage that competition, known as the Principles and Rules for Co-operation and Competition, and the Government committed in their response to the NHS Future Forum report to maintain these and place them on a statutory footing so that they could continue to apply to commissioners. That is exactly what we have done; there has been absolute continuity in how the rules apply. Clinical commissioning groups work within this framework to secure the best services for patients that they can, from whichever provider best offers that prospect. In essence that is the value of this framework of rules. They will be supported in this activity by guidance from NHS England and Monitor, and through the work of commissioning support units.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked me what I would regard as a reasonable proportion of NHS activity to be put out to tender. I have no view on this, and nor should I. The decisions on tendering are entirely up to commissioners and not Ministers. The noble Baroness also indicated that seven out of 10 NHS contracts have gone to the private sector since last April. I point out that that figure is highly misleading. It was quoted in a newspaper article, but the contracts in the sample that was quoted amount to a tiny and unrepresentative sample of the scale of NHS activity. In reality, spending on healthcare from private-sector providers equates only to around 6% of total NHS expenditure. It was roughly 5% at the end of the previous Administration.

My noble friend Lady Brinton asked whether there will be guidance from Monitor to clarify the duties on commissioners, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that commissioners are confused about that. Monitor has now published its guidance to support commissioners in understanding and complying with the Section 75 regulations. Monitor, along with NHS England, will undertake further engagement with commissioners to support them in understanding the requirements. I acknowledge that there is a degree of misunderstanding out there, but not everywhere. NHS England’s forthcoming procurement guidance will provide further guidance on the EU requirements.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised concerns about fragmentation and barriers to integration. To the extent that fragmentation exists, I say to him that it existed as greatly under his Government. I am proud to say that this Government are taking practical steps to make integration more commonplace throughout the country. We are supporting a number of integration pioneer sites, which will trailblaze new ideas to bring care closer together. They will be leaders of change—a change we have to see in the system if we want to offer the best-quality care.

We are also supporting the system through the £3.8 billion Better Care Fund, which will encourage organisations to act earlier to prevent people reaching crisis point, to offer seven-day services, and to deliver care that is centred on people’s needs. That idea and that fund have been widely welcomed. Therefore, our focus is for commissioners to innovate and to work with partners in the sector to design integrated care pathways for patients that allow for a seamless experience of care. I assure the Committee that the competition rules do not stand in the way of that. In fact, the Section 75 regulations explicitly allow for it.

Under the regulations, the objective of a commissioner must always be to secure the needs of patients, including through services being integrated. For example, in Milton Keynes, substance misuse services used to be delivered by several providers, resulting in fragmented care. Users found services difficult to navigate, which impacted on treatment entry and retention rates. In response to this, NHS Milton Keynes CCG and Milton Keynes Council developed an outcomes-based approach to commissioning. Existing services were brought together into one fully integrated, recovery-focused service, delivered by a third sector organisation, which enabled more effective delivery of care and efficiency savings of 15% to 20%. That is a clear example of good commissioning delivering improved services for patients.

I turn to the OFT’s role and the review of mergers. Again, it is important to realise that the NHS has long had arrangements in place to review mergers on competition grounds, and that in considering mergers the competition authorities are acting under their existing powers under the Enterprise Act 2002.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, criticised Part 3 of the Health and Social Care Act. Repealing Part 3 of that Act would not remove the powers of the competition authorities. In fact, the 2012 Act was important in clarifying those powers in order to address the legal uncertainty for NHS bodies as to whether mergers between them would be considered by the OFT or the CCP. Without this clarification, providers would have been at risk of double jeopardy, with both bodies potentially seeking to undertake a review.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, cited several examples of challenges being issued on competition grounds which he attributes to the existence of Part 3 of the Act. I do not want to comment on the detail of those cases—it would be wrong of me to do so—but I would point out that challenges of that kind would have been quite capable of being brought even if the Government had never introduced the Health and Social Care Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I understand where the noble Earl is coming from in relation to the Enterprise Act. However, is it not a fact that essentially what happened was that the 2012 Act was a signal to the market that a market was being put in place? Why have a 300-page Act and why have the Section 75 competition regulations? In essence, the Government opened the door in this regard and that is why these challenges are now taking place. They did not take place before the 2012 Act.

[Earl Howe]

The market, however, did exist, which was the point that I made. The market was out there well before the 2012 Act and well before this Government came to office. It was incumbent on us to clarify and simplify the rules that the previous Government put in place. We did that through Part 3 of the Act. It was not a signal to anybody to marketise the NHS. Indeed, as I said, we explicitly provided for it to be illegal for Ministers or Monitor to prefer the independent sector over public sector providers. That is explicit in the Act, so the noble Lord cannot accuse the Government of enabling legislation to promote marketisation.

[Baroness Thornton]

My noble friend’s question was actually about the signal. If, as the noble Earl has told us, all these things existed before the Act, why did we have to have Part 3 of the Act? Why was it necessary? The only reason that it seems to have been necessary—we think that the evidence now shows that to be the case—is that it increased marketisation in the NHS.

[Earl Howe]

Let me be clear. Repealing Part 3 of the Health and Social Care Act, which is what the noble Baroness appears to be suggesting is desirable, would not stop competition law applying. It would not remove the powers that the OFT has, which were introduced by the previous Government. It would just mean that a health expert regulator—Monitor—would not be the body considering the application of competition law to the NHS. I do not believe that that is in the best interests of patients. That provision was widely welcomed by those who understood these matters.

I was asked about the case involving Blackpool and Spire. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on an ongoing investigation by the independent regulator but I stress that, in considering this case, Monitor is doing nothing that the Co-operation and Competition Panel could not have done under the principles and rules for co-operation and competition. As regards the Greater Manchester proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised, I can inform him that Monitor has closed that case and NHS England is pursuing its procurement of these services.

The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about Bournemouth and Poole. I want to be clear that there is nothing to stop two providers coming together if it is in the best interest of patients. The OFT has already cleared two out of three mergers. However, while in some places mergers have improved things for patients, there is evidence that some mergers can be costly and may not deliver the benefits that were intended. It is therefore right that these are examined. The competition authorities have listened to concerns raised in the system. That is why, in October last year, they set out their commitment to work together with Monitor to ensure that the interests of patients are always at the heart of the merger review process; that the process works quickly and predictably; and, importantly, that any costs can be minimised.

Monitor will take a more active role in supporting merging parties and advising the OFT. This means that some mergers may not need to go to the competition authorities at all, and that those which do can be dealt with more quickly. For example, the proposed merger involving Torbay and Southern Devon Health and Care NHS Trust—an integration pioneer—and the South Devon Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust is one of the first cases in which, with the help of Monitor, the trusts have been able to self-assess and conclude that they do not need to notify the merger to the OFT, as it would be unlikely to raise concerns from a competition perspective.

The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, challenged me on the evidence for the value of competition. There is robust evidence, as I have already mentioned. A report of January 2012 by the Office of Health Economics states that,

“evidence both from the UK and internationally suggests that quality based competition with prices fixed by a regulator can be beneficial, producing higher quality care at the same cost on average and, importantly, not leading to increased inequity in access to care”.

Researchers at the London School of Economics have found that hospitals in areas where patients have more choice of provider have shorter lengths of stay in hospital and lower death rates than in less competitive markets. Research by York University found an increase in quality at a hospital stimulated local rivals to respond, as well as to increase the quality of their services. The research found improvements in relation to mortality rates, stroke readmission and patient satisfaction.

There are various other answers that I would like to give, but I have been advised that I am well over time, for which I apologise. I simply conclude by saying that this has been, as ever, a stimulating debate on a topic to which I am sure we will return in coming months. I hope that my comments today have at least partially clarified the legal position and wholly clarified our intentions regarding the place of competition in the NHS. I hope, too, that they have provided some measure of reassurance to noble Lords that the system is acting upon the concerns that it hears.

Committee adjourned at 6.52 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Monday, 10 February 2014.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Economy: Manufacturing

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Baroness Wilcox]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the levels of manufacturing activity in the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, manufacturing output increased by 0.8% in the final quarter of 2013 and by 2.5% over the course of the year. A strong manufacturing sector remains crucial to the UK economy, both now and in the future. Manufacturing is a major driver of productivity growth. It accounts for £12.2 billion of UK business R&D and over half of the UK’s exports, and provides employment for 2.6 million people.

[Baroness Wilcox (Con)]

I thank the Minister and am delighted to know that my Government are doing so well. However, if we are to fill industry’s growing need for a young workforce who are skilled in new techniques and disciplines—such as those required in the pharma industry—it is time that careers advisers and teachers in our schools understood and offered equal status as regards the choices between universities and apprenticeships. EAL’s survey of 600 apprentices found that fewer than one in 10 of them found out about their options from schools. It cited the case of a girl with A grades who wanted to be an apprentice but was told that her adviser could not help. She has gone ahead and done it on her own: she has trained as an apprentice with BAE and is now fully qualified and fully salaried. She has a car of her own and is putting down a deposit on a house—good girl.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

We have placed a legal requirement on schools to secure independent careers guidance, including information on apprenticeships, and we are successfully increasing the numbers of apprentices in the engineering and manufacturing technology sector subject area. In 2012-13, there were 138,700 such apprentices, an increase of 10.3% on 2011-12, and we have opened 17 university technical colleges, with a further 33 in development.

[Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)]

My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware of the recent Jaguar Land Rover publication which talks about busting the myths? This company—along with Semta and EAL, which the noble Baroness mentioned—is doing a magnificent job with apprenticeships. However, it is perhaps a little unfair to suggest that all this started with this Government. Jaguar Land Rover now has seven plants in the UK, four of which were opened, with R&D and apprenticeships, way back in 2004. The Government are to be applauded for carrying on what was already in place. Over that period apprenticeships have grown, on which I congratulate them.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I would not disagree with the noble Baroness but I would echo her thoughts that Jaguar Land Rover has done a magnificent job in leading our exports into new markets abroad. This is on top of the excellent news about Bombardier in the Midlands, a decision which gives a new vote of confidence in British manufacturing and which supports 760 manufacturing jobs and 80 apprenticeships in the UK.

[Lord Broers (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister will agree that the Technology Strategy Board’s catapults have been a very positive move forward in driving innovation for manufacturing, especially the high-value manufacturing catapult. These catapults were to a certain extent based on the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, but our effort is rather small compared with Germany, which has 60 while we still have fewer than10. Are we going to expand this programme?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

The noble Lord makes a good point. It is true that we are behind France and Germany in this aspect, but we are taking several actions, particularly with our catapult programme and the EPSRC—the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council—which will lead us forward and enable us to compete in markets. It is essential that we do this.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I am sure we all want to encourage a much more robust manufacturing base in this country. An article in the Economist last week pointed out that, unlike the rest of the country, the north-east and south-west regions still saw an increase in unemployment up to the year ending November 2013. There are huge problems at the moment in the south-west, which was already facing a downturn in its tourist industry and now has floods and difficulties with trains. Is there anything the Government can do to encourage a more long-term, stronger economic and, indeed, manufacturing base in the south-west of England?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

Our industrial strategy focuses on the whole country. I note the right reverend Prelate’s point about the south-west where they are suffering so terribly from the floods. The industrial strategy has five main strands which are bearing fruit, particularly in places such as Liverpool and Tyneside, and the south-west is just as important.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House welcomes a recovery in manufacturing, but can my noble friend tell us about the Government’s preparations for potential shortages in technical skills as economic growth picks up? What plans do they have to extend the higher apprenticeship scheme?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, the Government will provide an extra contribution of £40 million to deliver an additional 20,000 higher apprenticeship starts in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 academic years. Professional bodies are playing a key role in developing a professional apprenticeship route. The changes we have made to higher apprenticeships now provide a clear, work-based progression pathway from an apprenticeship through to higher education and professional careers.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister recognises that the north-east is a very strong manufacturing area but has continuing unemployment. Will he guarantee that the Government will eventually support the UTC that Hitachi wants to sponsor in Newton Aycliffe in order to get a highly skilled workforce for train building in the north of England?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I will need to write to the noble Baroness about that specific example, but I hope she will be greatly encouraged by the huge amount of work going into progressing the UTCs. There are 50 of them, creating 30,000 opportunities for young people to train as engineers and scientists for the future. These are the skills that we need to build up.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister about the definition of manufacturing versus services. A lot of the new technology sector that I am aware of does not really fit into either category, and I suspect that the overall assessment of manufacturing is underassessed as a result of technical developments.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My noble friend makes a very good point. Indeed, manufacturing has changed enormously. Although I do not have a precise definition for him, it is true that manufacturing includes myriad small businesses that are working very hard not just within the UK but in helping our export drive.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, any growth is welcome but it is worth noting that manufacturing is still lagging behind services and construction in this week’s PMI figures, which measure business confidence. Is the Minister aware that concerns have been voiced by major manufacturers, including Nissan and Hitachi, about pushing Britain towards the exit door in Europe? A report from the manufacturers’ association, EEF, shows that manufacturers want to remain part of the European Union with no ifs or buts.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

I shall give a very quick answer to the noble Lord. We are working extremely hard to develop markets in Europe, which at the moment are proving to be quite challenging.

NHS: Black and Minority Ethnic Nursing Directors

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Lord Crisp]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many Executive Directors of Nursing in the National Health Service are of black or minority ethnic background.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

Data from September 2012 estimate that there are 195 nursing directors. Of these, five, representing 3%, identified themselves as being from a black or minority ethnic background. The Government recognise that there needs to be better progress in promoting talented BME nurses to senior and influential positions. Last month, NHS England launched a coaching and mentoring scheme, and it is currently working on a strategy alongside the Chief Nursing Officer’s Black and Minority Ethnic Advisory Group.

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that detailed response, and I am pleased to know that NHS England is taking some steps on this. This is a hidden problem, with fewer than 3% of nursing directors coming from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. This underrepresentation, which is mirrored elsewhere in the NHS, is particularly important because it affects morale, and staff morale in turn, as noble Lords will know, inevitably affects patient care and outcomes. In other words, this is a health issue and not just an equal opportunities one. Will the Minister say a bit more about his plans to deal with this problem and, crucially, whether he will arrange for progress to be monitored and reported on publicly by the Care Quality Commission, the Equality and Human Rights Commission or some other independent body?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this issue. A strong focus on equality and diversity is essential to create services and workplaces that are equitable and where everyone feels that they count. The position at present is highly unsatisfactory. The Chief Nursing Officer has personally assured me that this is a priority for her, and she is working closely with BME nurse leaders to address how to support BME nurses to prepare themselves for promotion. Forty-six million pounds has been invested at the NHS Leadership Academy in schemes on leadership development being led by the Chief Nursing Officer. At last year’s BME nursing conference, she made a public commitment to renew efforts to develop BME nurses more effectively, and that will include monitoring.

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, what figure, set by the Government or Public Health England, would constitute a success for the strategy that my noble friend has just outlined?

[Earl Howe]

We have to be a little careful about doing anything that appears to look like positive discrimination or setting quotas, because we stray into areas of dubious legality if we do that. Having said that, as I have indicated, the priority of the Chief Nursing Officer is extremely clear and substantial resources have been put behind this. I pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, did when he was NHS Chief Executive. We have picked up a lot of the ideas that he promoted at that time. I would be very disappointed if there were not progress within a few years but one has to set a realistic time horizon.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my health interests. One answer to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, would be to point out that 18% of the NHS workforce in England is from a BME background and 14% of the population of England is from a BME background. As 2.6% of nursing directors comes from a BME background, that shows that there is a very long way to go. Is the Minister confident that NHS England is acting in accordance with the Equality Act? If he is not confident, what is he going to do about it?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, just to correct the noble Lord, the latest figure I have from 2012 is that total ethnic minority groups in nursing, midwifery and health visiting comprise 19.7% of the nursing workforce. That underscores the basic point that he made. One cannot aspire to 19.7% of those ethnic nurses becoming nurse leaders because there is only a limited number of leadership posts. However, we are clear that this should be a priority for the NHS.

The answer to the noble Lord’s second question is that the Equality and Diversity Council has published some refreshed guidelines. One of its goals is to have a representative and supportive workforce throughout the NHS. It is putting that in train by asking NHS organisations to monitor their equality performance jointly with their patients, communities and staff.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, ten years ago, the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, described the NHS as being snow-capped—that is, all white at the top. Since his departure as Chief Executive of the NHS in 2005, there are now fewer leaders from visibly different backgrounds and, as we have heard, pitifully few executive directors of nursing. What are the Government doing to ensure that this matter is kept at the top of the agenda and to assure us that we will hear about the success of the programme as it continues?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I have already mentioned some of the initiatives that are in train. However, I can tell my noble friend that, within the NHS Leadership Academy, there are two programmes specifically for nurses and midwives that map to foundation, mid and executive level leadership development. There is the front-line leadership programme which is for staff who have leadership responsibilities—for example, ward sisters and nurses working in primary care. We expect 6,000 nurses and midwives to participate in that programme in the first year. There is also the senior operational leaders programme which provides senior nursing clinicians with an opportunity to enhance their leadership skills.

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, a web audit found that only 80 NHS trusts publish annual staff data broken down by ethnicity. Will the Minister reassure the House that all NHS trusts meet their legal obligations under the Race Relations Act and that all workforce issues faced by black and minority ethnic staff are identified?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend raises a crucial issue about transparency. I can assure her that this is squarely within the sights of the Chief Nursing Officer and her advisory group.

Economic Inequality

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked by

[Lord Giddens]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what policies they have to address economic inequalities in British society.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, according to the latest ONS statistics, income inequality in the UK is at its lowest level since 1986. The Government are committed to ensuring that all families benefit from the return of growth to the economy and maintain that the best route out of poverty and the best way of reducing inequality is for households to move into work.

[Lord Giddens (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. However, I do not recognise it at all. Burgeoning social exclusion on the bottom; stagnant wages in the middle; runaway incomes and wealth at the very top—this is not a formula for a stable and integrated society. Surely the Government need some more radical and far-reaching policies to deal with this disturbing situation, which even the grandees at Davos are rather perturbed about.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, one of the priorities of the Government is to ensure that work pays for everybody. This is one of the benefits that the Universal Credit will bring. This is one of the advantages of taking 2.7 million people out of income tax altogether. This is one of the reasons why my colleague, Vince Cable, has asked the Low Pay Commission to look at raising the minimum wage beyond what it might otherwise do, and this is why the Government support the living wage. Ensuring that work pays—and pays well—for people at modest levels of income is a top priority for this Government.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is far more important to focus on making the poor richer than on making the rich poorer?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, we want to make sure that everybody makes a fair contribution to society and that all those in work get a fair wage for their labour. Obviously, there comes a point when taking too much tax from those right at the top becomes counterproductive. However, certainly in terms of income tax take, the proportion of income tax now paid by the top 1% is at a historically high level.

[The Lord Bishop of Worcester]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the first report published today by the Living Wage Commission, chaired by my friend the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, which found that emerging economic recovery will have no effect on more than 5 million workers unless employers pay a living wage. It found furthermore that 6.7 million of the 13 million people in poverty in the UK are in a family where someone works—which, for the first time, is more than half the total. Will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to address this real concern?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the Government are encouraging employers to pay the living wage where they can. One of the key things about people in work on very low incomes is that a large proportion of them are working a small number of hours or a smaller number of hours than they would like. Economic growth will mean that more of those people are able to work longer hours, which will help deal with their household circumstances.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, not everyone is able to take paid work. Will the Minister explain what impact the raft of social security cuts, which will make the poor poorer, will have on inequality?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, the prior question to that is: why are these changes being made? The answer is that we inherited a completely unsustainable economic circumstance which this Government are putting right.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, despite recent efforts there remains a significant youth unemployment gap between black and white youths and some ethnic minorities—45% compared to 19%. While urgent improvements in skills and employability are needed to reduce the remaining structural problems, what more is being done to tackle the racial inequality that appears to be the key underlying factor?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, one of the key challenges that the Government face is that educational attainment for some ethnic minority groups is lower than for others. That is why the priority being put in by the Government, via the pupil premium, to those schools with a larger than average proportion of children from those backgrounds is so important. Raising their attainment, as well as, as we have heard in an earlier question, putting in place UTCs, will provide much more vocational training, which is one of the key things for helping children from those communities.

[Lord Peston (Lab)]

My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for being an economist and for allowing some economics to get into an economics question. Is the Minister aware of the research evidence on these matters, which is that we need some inequality in our society in order to provide a proper incentive system? However, it is possible—and it is almost certainly the case in our country—that we have far too much inequality, which is a disincentive to economic growth. The Government do not seem to understand that, but when the Labour Government take over next year they will understand it and will deal with the matter.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, that is no doubt why we inherited such rosy economic circumstances.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister used the graphic phrase, “making work pay for everyone”. It certainly pays for bankers, as Barclays tomorrow will announce another £2 billion in bonuses, following the £2 billion that it paid out last year. Since 2008, banks will have paid out, in accumulation, £80 billion in bonuses—£1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. How can the Government talk about us all being in this together when there is such an obvious imbalance in the economy?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, bonus levels in the City—although he finds them outrageously high—are now very much less than they were. There is a now a raft of domestic and EU rules in play that will reduce the extent to which bankers can take bonuses, except over a period and when bonuses are linked to the performance of the bank.

Housing: Commonhold

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to review the present requirement for the agreement of 100 per cent of tenants in leasehold blocks of flats in order to convert the tenure of those flats to commonhold.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, my interest is declared in the register. Can I ask the Minister if he is aware—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Oh! I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have no plans to review the 100% rule for conversion from leasehold to commonhold.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have asked this Question repeatedly over the years and I have always had the Answer that it is totally impossible? That is on record in Hansard many times. Does the Minister think that, as we now have so many different Acts covering the same issues, even for the skilled property lawyer it has become quite a nightmare, and is impossible for ordinary people? Even today I am wandering too. Does the Minister think that it is time that the Government asked the Law Commission to review this legislation with a view to bringing in a consolidation Act?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Gardner has been a doughty champion of commonhold and has indeed recorded her interest and Questions on a number of occasions, in the past decade in particular. Of course, commonhold is successful and well established in other parts of the world, particularly Australia. Unfortunately it has failed to attract much enthusiasm in this country. It was originally the creation of the Law Commission in the 1980s. Whether review of commonhold legislation might be suitable for the commission’s further consideration is a question for the Government ultimately to decide. They have to decide priorities in accordance with the protocol but will bear in mind what the noble Baroness has said.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister has pointed out, my noble friend Lady Gardner has on many occasions very effectively brought to the attention of the House the defects in domestic leasehold law. He gave a rather dusty reply as far as the Law Commission was concerned but it has been engaged in consultation about its 12th programme. The decision is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. Is it not high time that the whole question of commonhold enfranchisement and leasehold law was considered by the Law Commission?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, the 100% rule, which is the subject of the Question from the noble Baroness, was in fact discussed in some considerable detail during the passage of this Bill through Parliament—the original Bill having been introduced by the party opposite. For reasons that we suggest are substantial, it was decided not to make the 100% rule a part of the law. Unfortunately, commonhold has not proved to be popular and there has been a very limited take-up. There is no obvious reason why this should be, particularly with new developments, although I accept it is much more complicated when converting leasehold to commonhold.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the council of the Property Ombudsman, which receives complaints from leaseholders. I fear that no one in your Lordships’ House will recall my maiden speech, during the passage of the Bill to which the Minister has referred. In that, I expressed considerable hope that commonhold would solve a lot of the problems that leaseholders face. That has proved utterly unfounded and this piece of legislation must be one of the least successful on the statute book. However, it works in other countries and this approach to leasehold in the future would bear scrutiny from perhaps—if the Minister’s own department or the Law Commission will not take up the cudgels—a group of parliamentarians. Does the Minister support the idea of a group of parliamentarians having their own inquiry to see whether we can break out of the logjam that seems to leave leaseholders in a very adverse position?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord is right about the degree of success. The House might like to know that only 16 commonholds have been registered in England and Wales, and the legislation came into force in 2004. None of them is particularly large. The largest, which has 30 units, is apparently a caravan site and only one with four units seems to be a conversion from leasehold.

During the passage of the Bill to which the noble Lord referred a number of increased rights were given to leaseholders, in particular of flats, to allow them to take over management of the building; to make it easier for leaseholders of flats to buy, collectively, the freehold of their building; and to allow unreasonable service charges to be reviewed by leasehold valuation tribunals. Part of the reason for the lack of take-up may be because other advantages accrued to leaseholders as a result of that legislation.

I am afraid that I am not in a position to give any of the assurances that the noble Lord required from me, but of course this is a matter that goes across different government departments and all his observations will be taken back to the Secretary of State.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of leaseholders is very lucky that it has the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, speaking on its behalf. But does the Minister accept that there is absolutely nothing in the Consumer Rights Bill currently going through Parliament to help this group or any other group of consumers in any meaningful way on a group issue such as this? Will he agree to try to work with BIS to strengthen that Bill to help these and other issues where a group of consumers is not getting the requirements that it wants?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Baroness is no doubt right, although I cannot confirm that there is nothing in that Bill that adds to the rights of potential commonholders. The position is that, although it has been available, it simply has not been taken up by professionals who might be considered to be aware of it—solicitors or surveyors. It has not been the subject of articles in journals. There simply does not seem to be genuine enthusiasm for it. That is regrettable, but it is a fact and the Government do not believe that people should be forced to go into these arrangements if they do not want to.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Having listened to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Best, will the Minister join me in suggesting to him that he applies to the Liaison Committee for an ad hoc committee to consider the matter?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord is very experienced in parliamentary matters. No doubt that is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Best, and he will have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested.

Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4 and Consequential Provision) Order 2014

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Neighbourhood Planning (Referendums) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Motions to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the draft order and regulations laid before the House on 6 November and 18 December 2013 be approved.

Relevant documents: 13th and 17th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 4 February.

Motions agreed.

Legislative Reform (Overseas Registration of Births and Deaths) Order 2014

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:08

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the draft order laid before the House on 5 December 2013 be approved.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 4 February.

Motion agreed.

Child Support Fees Regulations 2014

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Child Support (Ending Liability in Existing Cases and Transition to New Calculation Rules) Regulations 2014

Motions to Approve

15:08

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 December 2013 be approved.

Relevant documents: 16th and 18th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 23rd and 27th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 4 February.

Motions agreed.

Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill [HL]

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:08

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Inheritance and Trustees’ Powers Bill [HL], have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Motion

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly take the opportunity to thank the Law Commission for making possible the reforms contained in the Bill. I also express the Government’s gratitude to the noble Lords who served my predecessor, my noble friend Lord McNally, on the Special Public Bill Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. I am sure that I speak for all members of the Committee in thanking the several witnesses who provided evidence on the Bill, including Professor Elizabeth Cooke, who many times throughout the course of the Bill provided invaluable expertise on the areas of law that it covers.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in expressing thanks, particularly to Professor Cooke and her colleagues on the Law Commission and all those experts in the law who were so helpful to the Committee. It was almost a pleasure to revisit issues like hotchpot, remainder and the like, with which the noble Lord and I were last acquainted many years ago—more years ago in my case than in his. Their involvement proved the value of that procedure. That being the case, given what was said earlier about leasehold enfranchisement and commonhold, I would commend the use of the Law Commission in that connection, and I hope that the commission might prove as successful in reviewing that issue as it has on this. We are indebted to all those who participated, including the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who struggled along with the rest of us through the earlier stages of the Bill, and to the present Minister, who took over with considerable aplomb.

[Lord Faulks]

I acknowledge what the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has said. Indeed, his own contributions to the debates are notable. I also thank the Bill team, whom I now see in their place, for providing such valuable assistance.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Report

15:12

Report received.

Immigration Bill

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:12

Moved by

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, as a country we welcome the benefits migrants bring to our industries, educational institutions and communities. We know that most migrants are here lawfully and benefit our country, but some are not: they enter the country illegally, overstay their permission to be here, work illegally, undercutting the resident labour market, contribute to overcrowded housing, claim benefits and damage social cohesion.

It is true that the “bad apple” immigration stories often drown out the positive ones. Many in this House have rightly championed these positive stories and campaigned for policies to bring even more benefits to the UK. The challenge for both Government and Parliament is to implement policies which strike the right balance, keeping the door open to those who have something to contribute, while maintaining a firm response against those who abuse our hospitality.

Immigration is an issue of significant concern to the public. This Government remain committed to reducing net migration. This is down by nearly a third since its peak in 2010, with net migration from outside the EU down to 140,000. It is at its lowest level since 1998. We have tightened the immigration routes where abuse was rife, strengthened the system of granting students permission to enter or stay in the UK, reformed the family visa system and set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted to the United Kingdom.

These reforms are not just about reducing volumes; rather, they have changed the character of migration to the UK. Although international student numbers are down by a third overall, the number of international students within our world-renowned universities has held steady. Indeed, the number of visa applications by students sponsored by a university increased by 7% last year. This Government closed the so-called highly skilled migrant programme, where research found that nearly half the migrants on the programme were in fact in low-skilled employment. However, we continue to welcome to our country migrants who have something to contribute, and the number of sponsored workers continues to rise. We have opened new routes for entrepreneurs and people of exceptional talent. In China, we now have more visa centres than any other country outside Asia, delivering the largest-ever increases in high-spending visitors.

This Bill will not undermine those important achievements; it will support them. The Bill does not make the UK a less attractive destination for legal migrants. Instead, it is about stopping abuses and making illegal migrants easier to remove. By dealing firmly with those who harm our country, it allows us to continue to welcome those who will bring benefits.

Before turning to some of the detail, let me say a little more about what the Bill does not do. Much rhetoric has been expressed about the Bill that is not borne out by closer inspection. The Bill does not undermine individual rights; rather, it strengthens them. The arbitrariness of whether the family life threshold has been met is replaced by clarity and consistency. We are giving the force of primary legislation to a framework set up to support Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that the Court of Appeal has already supported in recent judgments. In doing so, we can ensure that serious criminals will be deported and that those deportations will be subject to less delay. That will not damage human rights but instead restore balance and public respect. It will address the erosion of public confidence in our laws.

The Bill does not undermine access to justice. Yes, appeal rights are being reformed, but that is essential. Visit any court in the country and listen to one of the 70,000 immigration cases heard each year, and you will not have to wait long to hear late claims that should have been made years earlier or claimants presenting new evidence not previously seen by the Home Office, thus turning the appellate body into a first-instance decision-maker. The Bill tackles this head-on but also provides an alternative, quicker, administrative remedy, while preserving a full appeal where fundamental rights are at stake.

The Bill does not deter legitimate students. Yes, they will have to pay a little more to access health services in future, but that is designed as a fair contribution, not a deterrent. We have consulted widely and given careful thought to this matter, taking into account the international market in which our universities compete. The extra cost to international students represents just over 1% of the total cost of their studying in the UK. The Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that the UK is competitive as a place for the brightest and best to come. Nothing in these proposals will prevent us achieving that goal, but it cannot be right that the National Health Service is open to the whole world. By taking action, we are addressing some long-standing anomalies in a wholly proportionate way.

The Bill is also not about Europe, despite what may have been said in the House of Commons or in the media. We are dealing with the imbalances in European migration by other means, but not here, not in this Bill. This Bill tackles non-EU illegal migration. It streamlines the process of removing illegal migrants while protecting the vulnerable. The coalition’s programme has been clear that we will build a fairer immigration system, looking after children and families within it and reintroducing exit checks to allow us to tackle overstaying and people fleeing British justice. The coalition is rising to those challenges.

The Bill is not seeking a brand-new power to deprive British people of their citizenship; these powers already exist. The British Nationality Act already sets out the circumstances in which the Home Secretary can deprive a person of their citizenship. The limited change that the Bill contains is to allow a small number of naturalised citizens who have taken up arms against British forces overseas or acted in some other manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK to be deprived of their citizenship, regardless of whether it leaves them stateless. There is a safeguard of a full right of appeal.

I hope that I have dealt with some of the myths surrounding this Bill. Let us return to some of the detail of what the Bill seeks to do. Part 1 of the Bill is about removals. The current process for enforcing the removal of people unlawfully in the UK is a complex one with multiple decision points. The system provides individuals with multiple opportunities to bring challenges throughout the process. This increases the risk of delay. We want to adopt a system in which only one decision is made. This will inform the individual that they cannot stay in the UK, and will enable immigrant enforcement to remove them if they do not leave voluntarily. We will, however, do this fairly, acting humanely, and ensuring all concerned have adequate notice.

Families being removed will continue to benefit from the coalition’s commitment to end child detention. Family cases are some of the most difficult that we handle, so it is right that they be given special consideration. The new family returns process, which was introduced two years ago, puts the welfare of the child at the heart of the decision and returns process. The coalition will reinforce the commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes by putting key elements of the family returns process into primary legislation. Amendments will be tabled in time for consideration in Committee in this House.

Part 2 of the Bill is about appeals. We are simplifying an overly complex system that forces people to bring expensive and time-consuming appeals. These reforms will incentivise those who wish to make claims to do so at the earliest opportunity and will strengthen the adverse consequences for those who make claims too late, in order to obstruct the removal process. We recognise that many appeals are allowed under the current system and there will be legitimate concerns. Many appeals are allowed because we take a different view from the courts on Article 8. The Bill will require the courts to put the public interest at the heart of their consideration of Article 8. We are achieving this in a way wholly compatible with the convention and fully maintaining our duty to promote and safeguard the best interests of children.

Many appeals are allowed because of administrative errors in decision-making. We believe that an administrative review can better correct those errors. We will debate the merits of the administrative review in Committee, but it has proven effective at resolving entry-clearance removals since 2008. A 28-day administrative process is substantially quicker and cheaper than the average 12 weeks it now takes to appeal via the tribunal and all the costs that this incurs.

Part 3 of the Bill is about migrants’ access to services. We want to ensure that only legal migrants have access to the labour market, free health services, housing, bank accounts and driving licences. Our proposals on housing attracted much interest in the House of Commons. We will require landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants. We know that this is a significant change to the law but the same was true when employers were required to start doing similar checks some years ago.

We will protect the vulnerable. We recognise that vulnerable people often possess less documentation to demonstrate a right to rent, so we have broadened the documents which prospective tenants can provide to manage this. We have exempted hospitals, hospices and care homes for the elderly as well as hostels and refuges for victims of violence and homeless people; they are all exempt. We will have a statutory non-discrimination code to ensure compliance with equality laws. Finally, we have committed to a phased rollout so that we do this safely and learn as we go.

On migrant access to healthcare, the current position in the UK—

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

What about the small landlord or landlady? Will he or she be able to seek an exemption?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

There is no specific exemption for the small landlord or landlady any more than there is for the small employer, as noble Lords will know. None the less, we will have the opportunity to debate the detail of these provisions when we get to Committee. In introducing the Bill at this Second Reading, I am trying to present those general principles which underline it.

I was starting to talk about health insurance. On migrant access to healthcare, the current position in the UK is very generous. While temporary migrants do not qualify for state benefits, those coming to the UK for more than six months usually qualify for free healthcare on their arrival in the UK. Unlike many other countries, we do not levy access charges or require health insurance. The Bill will address this by requiring non-EEA migrants who come here for more than six months to pay a health surcharge. The money collected will be channelled directly to front-line NHS services. Visitors and illegal migrants will not pay the surcharge; they will continue, as now, to be fully liable for the full cost of most NHS treatment charges. We have exempted a number of vulnerable groups from having to pay.

The health charge has been designed to be simple and cost effective to operate, avoiding administrative complexity that would erode the financial benefit to the taxpayer.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

If the Bill is so perfect, why do so many organisations concerned with immigration oppose it, and oppose it with vigour?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, long experience shows that the best way of handling these debates is to allow my noble friend the Minister to lay out his stall, explaining how the Bill works, and then debate the Bill.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, I am sure that noble Lords would expect me to extol the virtues of the Bill—they would be sorely disappointed if I failed to do so. It will be for noble Lords in this House to discuss its provisions, but some of the commentary that I have read over the past few days on the Bill bears no relation to the Bill as drafted, or indeed to the intention of the Government. If I may give an example, claims that we intend to turn GPs into immigration officers are untrue. Claims that communicable diseases will spread like wildfire and that emergency care will be denied are far-fetched. Nothing in the Bill changes processes in our front-line health services.

Part 4 of the Bill is about tackling sham marriages and civil partnerships. These are entered into by a couple who are not in a genuine relationship for the purposes of circumventing immigration controls. They are a significant problem, as this House will recognise. The Bill will enable more of these cases to be identified, investigated and prevented from gaining an immigration advantage.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has said, a lot has been said about this Bill and a lot more will be said. I know that this House will give it serious scrutiny and I would expect nothing less. While we do that, I hope that we will separate myth from reality and spin from substance. The Bill renews the legal foundations for proper enforcement of our immigration laws. That enforcement is necessary to build public trust in the system. It is also necessary to enable us to reap the benefits of migration as a nation. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.

15:30

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the Bill and for meeting me, my noble friend Lord Rosser and the former Immigration Minister last week. We know that there is considerable concern about immigration and we appreciate that at times its pace has been too fast. The duty of government is to manage immigration in a way that is fair and just to citizens and fair and just to those who wish to live and work in the UK. Even though we support some of the measures in the Bill, it does not tackle the issues that could really make a difference and are of the greatest concern. A number of the measures fall in what could be called the realm of unintended consequences in that they have a significant and disproportionate effect on law-abiding British citizens, legal visitors, and visa holders who are an asset and contribute positively to the UK.

The Government’s policy of managing and reducing migration is deeply flawed. Their net migration target is a measure for success, but does not target the right things. It means that highly qualified UK professionals who leave to work abroad are classed as a government success. Fee-paying students, including those studying for doctorates and undertaking valuable research, who no longer come to the UK but now pay fees to study and develop research in other European countries, are also classed as a success. That is not our definition of a successful, well managed immigration policy. It is not just about numbers. It is about people and the contribution that they make, and also our international humanitarian obligations, such as in the case of Syrian refugees fleeing horror, torture and rape.

We are in total agreement that we need to tackle illegal immigration. We need to do more to ensure that foreign criminals are deported, but illegal immigration is getting worse and the Government appear to have been remarkably lax in tackling it. Just last week Judge Richard Bray said that the Home Office and the Border Force were “hopelessly undermanned”, which had led to an Albanian national who, having been convicted of drugs and violent offences, was imprisoned and then deported three times on three separate occasions—and yet each time he returned to the UK to reoffend.

That is where real, determined and effective action needs to be taken. The number of foreign criminals deported has fallen by more than 13%, from 5,471 to 4,700. Between 2011 and 2012 the number of businesses fined for using illegal workers plummeted by nearly half, from 2,269 to just 1,215. So under this Government the number of people stopped from entering the UK at our borders has halved, the number of people removed for breaking the rules is down by 7%, and only half as many businesses have been fined for employing illegal workers. Either the extent of the problem has been vastly reduced under this Government or they are incompetent in managing our borders and addressing the problem of illegal immigration.

The response of the Government is not to look at tackling the problem at source. It is not to seek in this field to manage borders effectively and combat people trafficking. It is not to examine whether the Government have deployed adequate resources or made cuts to the bone, making it harder for immigration officials to do their jobs. The Government’s response is this Bill. It is in effect to outsource their responsibility for illegal immigration to landlords and nurses, for example. We have said time and again that the Government’s focus in dealing with immigration is wrong and ineffective on illegal immigration. That leads to greater exploitation and abuse of migrants, has a far greater negative impact on the UK as a whole and undermines public confidence. So while the Government have deliberately presided over a massive fall in the number of university students paying to study in the UK, students who contribute intellectually and financially, they have been totally ineffective in tackling the shocking abuse in student visitor visas, as highlighted in tonight’s “Panorama” programme.

There are real concerns about some of the measures in the Bill but we have grave concerns about what is not in the Bill. Where are the measures that would really make an impact on illegal immigration? Where are the measures to protect workers from being undercut on wages or being put at risk from lax working conditions, or from gang masters exploiting the weak and desperate to work?

We welcome a sensible debate about managed migration and immigration and its impact on the lives of citizens and migrants. Where measures are sensible they will have our support. For example, we all want to see stronger action against sham marriages. We will apply three tests to the Government’s proposals. First, we will look at the evidence base for the proposals that the Government are bringing forward. Secondly, we will look at the practicality, workability and proportionality of the proposed measures. Thirdly, we will look at the effectiveness and impact of those proposals, including on the wider population. For example, the Government claim that their measures to tackle illegal immigration by in effect co-opting landlords as immigration officials will reduce the housing available for illegal immigrants and therefore increase the number leaving the country. However, they also admit that the costs exceed the benefits that they can quantify and they have no idea how many illegal immigrants would be affected. They have no idea whether there would be any impact on the number of homes available to rent.

The Bill is clear that landlords should not act in a discriminatory way. How is that going to work in practice? Most landlords already undertake checks. The Residential Landlords Association fears that:

“Landlords will have to cover their backs and avoid accusations of discrimination by examining identity documents of all potential tenants”.

Will all potential tenants need to have a passport with them? What about the 17% of British citizens who do not have a passport? What other documents will be acceptable? How will landlords know what documents they should use and recognise? What about the woman fleeing a violent home who does not have access to any documentation to prove her citizenship? What about students who, although studying here legally, will be unable to present their passports to prospective landlords until they are in-country but need to arrange accommodation before they arrive?

As conscientious as law-abiding landlords will be, the Government know that it is possible to get it wrong and make a mistake. When the Minister, Mark Harper, employed his cleaner, he was confident that he had undertaken the appropriate checks on her nationality. He is an intelligent man. He knows the law and would have done his utmost to comply with it. But he made a mistake. He got it wrong. How many landlords could make a similar mistake? If the Immigration Minister can so easily get it wrong, how can the Government possibly think that each and every landlord in this country, whether renting 100 properties or, to echo the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, just one, is qualified to act as an immigration official? Good legislation has to work in practice, which is why we will table amendments for a UK-wide pilot to be undertaken and will forensically question the Government on this and other measures.

Clauses 33 and 34 on health are narrower than the Government’s spin doctors have implied, and indeed narrower than what the Government have already produced proposals on, including charging for access to GPs to tackle what Ministers call “health tourism”. These proposals are more limited but still require further examination. Clause 33 makes provision for a new charge as a condition of certain visas and Clause 34 redefines who is liable for charges—that is those without indefinite leave to remain.

The principle that visitors to this country who are not entitled to free healthcare can be charged by the NHS is already established but, according to the Bill, the money collected via the visa system does not go directly towards NHS healthcare but to the Consolidated Fund. The Minister said that it would go to special projects. I do not know whether the Government will be bringing forward an amendment to that effect. Bizarrely, this could lead to greater costs and less income for the NHS if you take into account that a number of those would pay or have insurance. The Government now intend to replace this with a visa charge that will not do direct to the NHS. It would be helpful to develop further in Committee how that charge will go to the NHS and what it could be used for if it cannot be used for their treatment. Will redefining those liable to pay mean that those legally working in this country and paying taxes will also have to pay for healthcare? There are a number of areas to probe further in Committee on access to services.

There are two further issues I wish to raise with the Minister today. The first is in Part 2. Clause 11 removes the right of appeal for First-tier Tribunal cases. We know the system is a mess. Successive reports from the Home Affairs Select Committee and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration have highlighted problems. There are serious delays and the quality of decision-making is poor. The most recent statistics reveal that 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry clearance decisions were successful appealed last year. These are cases where the Home Office got it wrong, but instead of trying to address the initial decision-making problems, the Government are now seeking to remove the right to appeal these wrong decisions. I think the Minister said that they want to get it right the first time. That is right, but what happens is that the Government do not like losing appeals so they want to abolish them. If we get decisions right the first time, there would be no need for so many appeals. Given that the Government’s own estimate of the cost of the new system of judicial review that they seek to put in place is around £100 million, would it not be better to put more effort and resources into getting the initial decision right?

When this Bill was debated in the other place, just 24 hours before Report a new amendment was tabled by the Government, which has now become Clause 60 of this Bill, on deprivation of citizenship. Currently, Governments can remove citizenship from individuals in certain circumstances but only if they have citizenship of another country so that they are not left stateless. The Government’s new proposals remove that condition so that the Home Secretary can deprive a naturalised citizen of their citizenship if the Home Secretary is satisfied that it is conducive to the public good as that person has conducted themselves in a manner prejudicial to British interests.

We accept that there can be a problem with those who become naturalised British citizens as adults and then abuse that right and may not even live in the UK, but there are serious questions, including those about the impact on national and international security, that must be addressed as it is a very extensive and significant power to give to a Secretary of State. We will table an amendment that this clause should include judicial oversight.

Our approach to this Bill will be to support sensible, practical measures. We will question those measures that appear ill thought out, unworkable or place disproportionate burdens on law-abiding citizens without seriously addressing the real problems. We will suggest improvements where we consider the measures proposed are fundamentally flawed and we will propose new measures that really could help tackle problems of illegal immigration. I hope that the Government will listen.

15:43

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, is there any area of policy more prone to misinformation and misrepresentation than immigration? As the Minister said, one of our tasks in looking at the Bill will be to be clear what it is and is not about. We also have a number of other objectives, including scrutinising and questioning the whole spectrum from probing to opposition and from seeking assurances on issues of concern to ensuring that what we end up with is workable in practice. I suggest that we have another objective, which is to provide leadership on the issue of immigration. I say that because immigration is so often a proxy for xenophobia and discrimination and it behoves us to argue for what we regard as morally right and to concern ourselves also with why the subject of immigration provokes such intense reactions. We need to unpack what underlies the hostility and sometimes the fear.

It appears that although very many people say that immigration is a problem, far fewer regard it as a problem in their own area. There is considerable overestimating of the numbers of migrants, and of the numbers of migrants claiming benefits, so leadership must include bringing reality and perception a great deal closer. One of the realities is the enormous benefit Britain derives, and has derived, from migration. I have always disliked the term “brightest and best”, because it implies some sort of narrow limited categories, but I am in no doubt that migration is important for Britain’s success. In an interconnected world, Britain will be best placed as a country of one society but many cultures. So I abhor some of the rhetoric that we hear, and am distressed by some of the messages taken from that rhetoric.

This is one of those Bills where it is impossible at this stage to cover, or even refer to, all of the issues. Nor is it possible to do justice to the considerable amount of briefing that we have all received. Through the medium of Hansard I say to all those who have contacted us that not repeating their points does not mean that they are ignored. The detail will come in the days to follow, and my Liberal Democrat colleagues—there are 12 or 13 of them—will be among those who will deal with different issues both today and during the course of our debates. As so often, it is the practice as well as the policy which is important. Your Lordships have already touched on this. We know that the Government are well aware of the importance of improving the standard of service—because it is a service—as well as the mechanics of border control and all aspects of immigration.

I do not imagine that it is a lot of fun working in the Immigration Service. Upskilling, and recognition of the professionalism needed, could go towards better decision-making. We require immigration officers to deal with high volumes, high stakes and constantly changing rules. Every noble Lord will have heard tales of poor decisions which have caused at best, delay; at worst, considerable distress and injustice. Capturing useful and accurate data is obviously important in itself and because of the misperceptions to which I have referred. It will take a while for exit checks to give a full picture of who is here, who is leaving and what they have done in the mean time. This is not least because people’s activities change over the years. However I very much welcome the progress on this score.

The presentation of data is also important. Student numbers, we know, will be an issue. I am one who regards the education sector as a very important export. We import students, but we export contacts, networks and reputation. We are required, internationally, to include students in the overall numbers, but I understand from discussion with the Minister that we publish student numbers separately. Those in a position to be clear about immigration do not seem to be energetic in trying to ensure the disaggregation of the figures. The disaggregated figures do not get the media coverage which would help us all.

Still on the theme of reality and perception, one point I want to make on health charges is the importance of not deterring people from seeking care and treatment to which they are entitled. This is because the message is inaccurate. The headline is the levy. This is a comparatively small charge, not requiring complicated administration, and is a good deal lower than any insurance premium than I have ever come across. But we need to look at what the entitlements are, at fairness and effectiveness, including ensuring accessibility for vulnerable individuals, and public health concerns. Migrants do not usually fit neatly into a couple of easily dealt with categories, and the most vulnerable, the most in need of healthcare, are likely to be the most easily deterred from seeking it.

Early proposals for the health service were cumbersome, bureaucratic and thought likely to give rise to more problems than solutions. It is fair to say that the Bill has gone a long way towards giving assurances on all of this—indeed there have been changes in the progress of this. But it is also fair to say that we have a way to go on giving reassurances regarding residential tenancies. I welcome the piloting of the provisions—and I do mean a pilot—with evaluation and assessment, not simply the first phase of a predetermined rollout. I would be interested to see how the nationwide pilot to which the noble Baroness referred would work. Evaluation must extend to the unintended consequences, which may easily mean driving underground people who are too easily exploited.

There is a lot in this Bill for our lawyers and for everyone concerned with human rights to get their teeth into—and there are some real terriers among them. I have long thought that an immigration system that requires so much legal assistance is not a good one. Greater simplicity and clarity must be desirable, but whether the change to the appeals system falls on the right side of the line is something that we will have to test. To me, it is logical to use review rather than appeal if review gets the job done—assuming that it is not properly done in the first place. But we need to understand how administrative review is both different from and better than the current arrangements. I note, of course, that appeals currently achieve a very high success rate, which must say something. We will discuss, too, out-of-country appeals. It must be more difficult to ensure justice when communication is more difficult. The rationale for changing the appeals regime is to rationalise and simplify it, which is not the same as reducing rights.

I am quite sure that the Bill will not do the courts out of a job. Some of the rhetoric around this that I find offensive is the criticism of lawyers—but perhaps I would say that. I do not want to go too far in questioning the phrase in the new clause on deprivation of citizenship,

“seriously prejudicial to vital interests”.

I had thought “vital” was about life and very existence, but I shall not question that too closely because I do not want to suggest lowering the threshold for executive decisions when innocence is not presumed. As well as the central proposition we will want to understand the consequences of such decisions for the individual and his family, both legally and practically, and how the decision will make the individual less of a threat.

There are many areas where humanitarian and cost considerations coincide, and immigration detention is one of them. I was intrigued to read of the Swedish model, based on engagement rather than enforcement, with apparently a very high rate of voluntary return and financial savings. On the theme of what is right, I look forward to statutory provisions regarding child detention. I want to put on record how impressed I was when I visited Cedars by the obvious good work undertaken there by Barnardo’s, which has my admiration for having taken that work on. It cannot have been an easy decision for that charity. This House can be relied on to concern itself with everything that affects children.

My final topic for today concerns both children and adults. The Minister will not be surprised that I take the opportunity of the Bill to raise again the family migration rules introduced in 2012 with new financial thresholds for sponsoring the entry of non-EEA partners and elderly dependants. There is an extraordinary range of circumstances in which British citizens and taxpayers have found themselves, maintaining relationships through Skype, if they can, and the impact on children separated from parents would defy even those who feared the worst when the rules were introduced.

People who come to our country do not fit a single picture. The irregular migrant population is a very diverse group. Some are in low-paid occupations in the informal economy, while some contribute far more to the UK economy through labour, taxes and spending than they take out in services. Who are illegal immigrants, of course, begs the question of what we choose to make illegal.

This may not be a Bill that either coalition partner would have chosen if left to itself, but I end by repeating that, on this multifaceted area of policy, the reputation of the UK—whom it welcomes and whom it protects, including the indigenous population—as well as the language and rhetoric that it uses are at stake.

15:55

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, my contribution to this debate covers simply the issue of a requirement, set out in Chapter 1 of Part 3, on landlords to make immigration checks of their tenants. As has already been noted, there is widespread anxiety that the outcome will be entirely unsatisfactory from the perspective of tenants, landlords and the Government themselves. I feel on very safe ground in pursuing this matter, since I note that the criticism of landlord-led immigration checks comes with equal emphasis from organisations representing landlords and representing tenants, and from those taking an overview from both perspectives. I am grateful to the Residential Landlords Association, the National Housing Federation, Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for their briefings.

There is a series of dangers and hazards in giving landlords these new responsibilities. Many private sector landlords will turn away legal migrants because they do not want the hassle and delay of having to make these extra checks. As I understand it, it will not be an offence simply to fail to check someone’s status, but only to fail to check the status of someone subsequently discovered to be an illegal immigrant. So if the potential tenant is very obviously not a migrant, no extra checking will be carried out. Many landlords will play safe and avoid all applicants who just might be migrants, including the legitimate ones. Indeed, UK citizens without a passport—not an uncommon position for those on low incomes—may be rejected by landlords not wishing to take any chances.

Already we know that nearly three-quarters of all landlords will not let to anyone in receipt of benefits. So this measure means even greater pressure on vulnerable tenants, many of whom are likely to end up with the exploitative landlords who all of us want to see driven out of business but who will ignore the law on this, as on many other counts. Last November, I joined police and local authority staff in Newham on a number of “raids” on properties where it was suspected that landlords were in breach of the law. I witnessed shocking conditions of overcrowding, breaches of health and safety regulations, and exorbitant rents for appalling conditions. Most of the landlords in this borough own just one property and, unsurprisingly, many are woefully ignorant of landlord-tenant law. One has to question whether this is a reliable group on whom the Government can depend for implementation of their immigration policies.

Good landlords, who have a reputation to maintain, will do their best to do what is right, but is it reasonable to add this regulatory burden to their workload? The Minister makes comparisons with the task given to employers, but this argument has some flaws. The UK Border Agency’s guidance to employers is 89 pages long; little wonder it is not always followed by small firms. The private rented sector is very much like the smallest of SME businesses, with nearly 2 million landlords agreeing 3 million new tenancies each year. Checking entitlement to work is easier than checking entitlement to residence. The sheer logistics are daunting. The Government’s consultation document lists 20 typical documents that landlords might expect to be familiar with. Perhaps as significantly, employers are not required to check on the status of other members of the employee’s household, but landlords will be expected to check out the immigration position of other family members and anyone else in the household, even though the landlord has no direct legal relationship with these people—hence the criticism that this is simply getting landlords to become UKBA agents.

Problems are particularly acute in shared accommodation let to several tenants with joint liability. In such cases, there is likely to be a fairly rapid turnover of tenants, and given that those moving in will usually be chosen by those already there, landlords will find it extraordinarily difficult to check the status of new tenants. Such are the greater obligations and pressures on landlords compared with employers: and we all know the hazards for employers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has already drawn attention.

The measures will also place extra burdens on local authorities, which will have responsibility for carrying out checks where they nominate the tenants to housing associations or send homeless families to private landlords. Demands on them to act as the point of referral and accept the immigration checking role seem certain to grow. The National Housing Federation raises another concern: tenants are to be given the job of checking on lodgers and may find that role at least as difficult as would a landlord.

All in all, I would echo the call for a proper pilot scheme to establish the viability of this policy idea. It needs to be established that this really is likely to be an effective measure before it is applied to nearly 2 million landlords.

16:01

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I am happy to declare an interest in this debate as the Bishop of Leicester, a city whose character, economy, culture and vibrancy have all been immensely enhanced by waves of immigration over the last 40 years. At last year’s 40th anniversary of the arrival of the Ugandan Asians expelled from east Africa by Idi Amin, we were reminded of an advertisement placed by Leicester City Council in 1973. It read:

“In your own interests and those of your family you should accept the advice of the Uganda Resettlement Board and not come to Leicester”.

It led to a headline in the Leicester Mercury: “No room here”. It is a reminder that general anxiety about immigration and the fears of politicians about public opinion on this matter are not new.

Thankfully, the Ugandan Asians ignored that advice and the city has become a beacon of good practice in which several thousand persecuted people were enabled to establish themselves in a short time without becoming any drain on public resources. The Ugandan Asians set an historic example to many other minorities who have followed and established a vibrant international network which has immensely benefited our city and our country.

We recognise that it is in the interest of the United Kingdom as a nation, and indeed it is right and proper, to control movement across borders. We recognise the rights to sovereignty of nation states and, as Christians, see the roots of this in the biblical record and the Judaeo-Christian tradition. However, this tradition also recognises clear obligations on the part of the nation state to all those who are within its borders. Many Christians would go further than this and affirm a positive duty of welcome to the stranger, recognising that, if justice is to be done, it must allow for the variety of needs and claims which people coming to the United Kingdom may present, not least in the circumstances associated with human trafficking, exploitation or domestic abuse. The needs of those vulnerable to these and other forms of oppression and deprivation will always be high in the priorities of this Bench.

On these two principles, I base a number of brief concerns about the Bill. First, Part 1 has wide-ranging implications for the safety and welfare of the thousands of children referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The Government have said that the Bill is designed to encourage people who do not have a legal right to be in the United Kingdom to go home. However, we know that, for many children, returning home is not an option. There are an estimated 120,000 undocumented children living in the UK; the majority were born here and many will have spent their formative years in this country. This is the only home they know and they will have no lasting links or support networks in their parents’ country of origin. Many of these children will already be at risk of destitution and social exclusion. It seems clear that the environment for undocumented migrant children in the United Kingdom, and their ability to have their legal claims to remain considered fairly, will substantially deteriorate.

Secondly, I want to touch on Part 2 of the Bill in relation to appeals. The range of grounds for appeal which the courts are permitted to consider is reduced dramatically here, as courts can no longer consider whether a decision was wrong, contrary to domestic law or regulations, or discriminatory. Those unhappy with an immigration decision will have recourse to an administrative review within the Home Office. However, the scope for lodging an appeal to prevent removal is narrowed severely in the Bill, and it is very rarely practicable for a person to pursue an appeal from abroad following removal. Indeed, the restrictions that the Government are placing on legal aid and on judicial reviews elsewhere are likely to work together with the measures in this Bill to severely limit access to justice. The sheer number of current appeals may lead to a feeling that this flood must be stemmed, but the remarkably high success rate of appeals surely puts paid to any suspicion that they are generally unfounded.

Thirdly, the Bill raises a question about the administrative process and its present effectiveness. The Home Office’s figures show that 49% of managed migration appeals, 50% of entry clearance appeals and 32% of appeals against deportation are allowed. The decision-making process within the Home Office clearly does not stand up to scrutiny. Can we be at all confident that an internal review system will serve the cause of justice as well as an independent appeal mechanism?

Further, there are serious concerns generally about access to services. The Bill draws new boundaries in terms of access to a home, healthcare, bank accounts and driving licences. Migrant children and young people are an especially vulnerable group in relation to healthcare. The experience of torture, violence, exploitation and abuse that many children will have suffered will have been exacerbated by disrupted healthcare systems, passage through refugee camps or other experiences leading to long and painful journeys to the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government propose to protect vulnerable, undocumented migrant children from new National Health Service charges, which they would be unable to pay and which could well dissuade them from seeking vital services?

Those concerns intensify the impression that asylum seekers, especially those who are undocumented but cannot be removed from the United Kingdom, will become an excluded group in an increasingly twilight world. The impact of all this is to contribute to a society that is divided into a country within a country, where those within the scope of civic entitlement are divided from those who are excluded from it, with social exclusion institutionalised in law. The Bill appears not just to police a border around our country but to erect many new boundaries within our society.

Finally, I want to speak about the provisions in Part 4 relating to marriage and civil partnership. We recognise that the strategic intention of this part of the Bill is to prevent the use of “sham marriage” to enable people to gain immigration status while circumventing the proper criteria. This is bound to create some conflict of principle for those of us who are Anglicans. The church, of course, wishes to offer the sacrament of marriage, reflecting the generous grace of God, and not to raise barriers on the basis of nationality. On the other hand, we are acutely aware of the dangers of sham marriage, including harm to individuals and to the very institution of marriage. We cannot know for certain the level of sham marriages presently taking place in churches, although there is some evidence that the bishops’ guidelines issued in 2011 have considerably improved the situation. There is no official Church of England position on this matter. Officials have worked with the Government to design processes which might work in law and in practice if the aims and general approach of the clause are accepted. However, it leaves open the question of whether this change is necessary or desirable.

There is genuine concern here that relationships between British residents and non-EAA nationals are now to be seen through a prism of mistrust which sends a dangerous message about mixed relationships in a diverse and multiethnic society. The Government’s impact statement claims that 2,500 removals from the UK will be generated in the first year by this provision alone. This will doubtless cause a large amount of stress, pain and anxiety to many genuine couples. It will also undoubtedly mean that the Government seek to remove and separate engaged couples whose marital plans are sincere. Even for those who do not face removal from the country at the end of the investigation process, it will be a stressful experience. A moment which should be a happy and fulfilling time in any person’s life has the potential to turn into a period of intense stress and pain.

We on this Bench recognise that illegal immigration is in the interests neither of social cohesion nor of those many migrants who make such an outstanding contribution to this country. However, we also recognise that there is a balance of social goods to be weighed. Many of the provisions in this Bill run the risk of generating serious concern, anxiety and tension among our diverse migrant communities. That may play well in parts of the press, but it will not be in the long-term interests of social cohesion in cities such as my own. In a global world where the drivers of migration are constantly strengthened, we need to ensure that this Bill does not erode our reputation for being a just and welcoming society upon which the prosperity and well-being of all citizens of this country depend.

16:10

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the final words of the right reverend Prelate.

I wish to begin by expressing my personal sadness at the news that Mark Harper has had to resign. I think he has done the right thing, but I was pleased to see that both sides of the House expressed admiration for his work as a Minister. I am very sorry to see him go. I commend James Brokenshire, the new Minister, for paying this House the courtesy of listening to the opening speeches in this debate.

I have never spoken in an immigration debate before in either House. This is a Second Reading so I am not going to enter into any detailed discussion on particular items that will obviously come up in Committee, but I think that we have to recognise that this country is an increasingly attractive island in a world that is suffering significant convulsions, be they economic or political. One has to look no further than Syria, Iraq, Libya and Egypt, most immediately, to see areas where the number of failed states has grown most significantly in recent years.

If I was uncertain about whether to speak, interestingly enough two items on the news this morning covered both points that I wish to address. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, referred to, “Panorama” has apparently identified a further problem of significant fraud, with bogus exams in student visa applications and identity theft among those who wish to prove their financial status. The second item was the Swiss referendum. For many years, Switzerland—a very attractive location for many people—has been faced with the issue of how many people to let into that country. In a national referendum, the Swiss have now voted in favour of quotas, and have decided to move away from the free movement of labour in Europe to which they were previously committed through their agreements with the European Union.

This Immigration Bill is yet another measure seeking to tackle the latest series of devices of one sort and another that have given rise to public concern about ways in which proper immigration controls have been evaded. There has been reference made to sham marriages. There have been references to shed landlords. There is a proposal to restrict the right to request bail which has arisen from the way in which some of the legal processes have been exploited by some immigrants, illegal or otherwise. Then there was the more contentious one about the right to a private family life and the proposal that this should not be an overriding exemption but should have regard to the public interest.

Before we have even dealt with this Bill, the Home Secretary has now promised another Bill, which will deal with human trafficking and modern slavery. That is yet a further indication of the huge pressure from migration and the extraordinary difficulty of effective immigration control.

The noble Baroness asked about the number of illegal migrants in this country. I do not think that anyone at the moment has a clue about that. Of course, the longer that that situation persists, the more damaging it is to public confidence. As the right reverend Prelate rightly said, we need to preserve in this country a proud tradition of providing shelter for genuine refugees and genuine asylum seekers.

The right reverend Prelate referred to Ugandan Asians. I remember a redundant army camp at Watchet in Somerset in which we welcomed Ugandan Asians and made it available as a first base for them when they came here. It just shows how old I am that I can also remember helping to teach English to Hungarian refugees, who came out of the Hungarian uprising in 1956 and found themselves, rather surprisingly, in a redundant TB hospital on the Mendip Hills in Somerset. We have a proud tradition and we should be a free and open society which welcomes visitors and honours, wherever possible, free movement of labour.

Many noble Lords have referred to the benefits of migration, but undoubtedly there is major public concern and I think that that is recognised. I noticed that Yvette Cooper in another place referred to the need for “stronger controls” on immigration and the need for a lot more measures to “tackle illegal immigration”. Mr Ed Balls has said that the unmitigated and unplanned immigration from the European Union, when 5.2 million people were on out-of-work benefits, was a mistake of the previous Labour Government. That is a very honest statement to make. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has given the clear warning that,

“Fixing the immigration system cannot be done overnight”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/13; col. 167.]

That is clear recognition of the problems we have.

As we bring forward this Bill, with the various measures in it, my noble friend will already recognise some of the problems that he will get. I notice that a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Best, who has already spoken and identified an area of concern, have mentioned that every one of the things that you might try to do that might help is fraught with difficulties and uncertainties.

When one looks at the world, the old phrase, “The future is not what it used to be”, undoubtedly rings true. In terms of pressure from immigration, people now talk about migration and some go so far as to talk about mass migration. As regards the various ingredients in the world’s situation, it is the duty of noble Lords to look ahead and to see how things may develop. One issue is the population explosion. From 1952-53, I served in Kenya when its population was 5 million. It is now 36 million. That increase in population is reflected in other parts of Africa. The problems of climate change are making certain areas virtually uninhabitable. I have referred to the quantum leap in the number of failed states.

Another issue is globalisation and the ease of communication. As we see in the interesting report on today’s front page of the Times, social media are being used by Syrian jihadists, and they are also being used by those involved in human trafficking and by illegal immigrants. Those involved may quickly communicate where there may be a loophole or some opportunity. That makes the problem much more difficult to tackle. It is not just about Somalis, Yemenis, Iraqis or Syrians or any people who have many reasons for wishing to leave their countries; there is the issue of eastern Europe, which has already been discussed. Then you even get to the point that London is now the sixth largest French city in world. This is the movement of people with the challenges it poses.

I notice that my right honourable friend Nick Clegg has said that we should be generous and open-hearted but hard-headed. We can maintain our position as a generous, open-hearted country only if the people in our country believe that we have a system that is under control and effective. That is why it is important to deal with abuses and fraud, even with the difficulties they produce.

I referred earlier to Switzerland. I think that the issue of free movement of labour is inevitably going to be discussed much more frequently. As I have said before in this House, at the time that we joined, the European Community of six became a Community of nine. At that time, I represented the United Kingdom as Secretary of State for Employment on the Council of Ministers. To try to transfer without alteration the rules that were fixed for nine countries to 28 different countries—with Ukraine and Turkey perhaps being added to the list—will pose challenges. We may say that we must maintain our tolerance and generosity of spirit, but I think that it will pose major challenges for our people.

The noble Baroness opening for the Opposition made the point very clearly about national and international security and the importance of an effective immigration control. One reads the reports today about the amount of jihadists that apparently have been identified as having moved into Syria, which is becoming not a university of crime—as they used to say about Long Kesh in my time—but in effect a university for terrorism. We have to be very careful indeed to ensure that we have effective control there.

When the various measures are discussed in Committee, I hope that every Member of your Lordships’ House will bear in mind the importance of ensuring that we come out of it with a system that gives the public confidence that, in this dangerous and uncertain world, we are determined to maintain effective immigration control so that our country’s tradition of a generous welcome can be properly maintained.

16:21

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

I will perhaps bring a slightly different perspective to a debate that has raised a number of key issues thus far. I hope that we can, by an act of the imagination, put ourselves alongside the people who have either recently arrived here from other places or who find themselves here illegally. They are all people, whichever category they fall into. In my daily work I meet them in all sorts of conditions. My team and I, where we have judged it appropriate, have brought it to the attention of people who are here illegally that they are so and have helped them, largely with the help of the Refugee Council, to find an appropriate and humane way to go home. In other cases, we have worked very hard with people—who just do not understand the complexity of the process and cannot always find lawyers in whom they have trust—to pick their way one step at a time through the process. We have stood in court and given character testimony for others.

My finest story concerns someone who was here illegally but was pursuing the matter through the courts. While she was unable to have accommodation or financial support she was named volunteer of the year for the Borough of Islington for the work she did in our local school. She was also called for jury service. When she said to me, “Reverend, they have asked me to go on a jury, what should I do?”—she was here illegally—I said, “Go do it, girl. Go do it”.

The whole thing is so complex from the point of view of the people affected by it. Beyond those who fall into the categories that I have named thus far are all those people of recent arrival here who know someone or are related to someone in the darker side of these affairs and who are simply torn apart knowing how to act for the best, with loyalties of various kinds weighing heavily on them. If I can—and who am I to do it?—I want to speak as if I were the voice of those who live in this world, are affected by these decisions and are trying as best they can to find their way towards a proper solution of their problems.

In the Bill there are lots of things that will raise people’s fears and create the atmosphere of mistrust that has been referred to, such as the unnecessary checks on migrants seeking rented accommodation, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is as well qualified as anyone in this House to talk about these matters. Other matters include taking out a bank account, driving a car, removing citizenship from naturalised citizens, or imposing charges for prospective use of the NHS. That is fair payment, says the Minister, and not a deterrent. But it does not always feel like that at the other end. The analysis is a fair one, but perception and feeling on the part of those affected by the decisions is a fair point to raise as well.

The Secretary of State’s ability to remove an individual from the United Kingdom before his appeal is heard is another one. The Minister mentioned how appropriate it is to remove citizenship from someone who has taken up arms against Britain. That is quite right. But at the moment I am dealing with a case of someone who took up arms for Britain. For the past 16 months, he has been in detention—having served several years, including in Afghanistan—seeking the right to remain in this country. The Minister talks about those who come illegally and undercut the local labour market. Again, that is quite right. But I am also dealing with those who exploit the illegal migrant to pay illegally low wages. There is a complex picture that must not be oversimplified. These are real lives lived on real streets by real people. I hope that we will keep that angle of view before us as we pursue the debates that will preoccupy us over the next several weeks.

I am the president of the Boys’ Brigade, a very noble and worthy young people’s movement. Last summer was the 50th anniversary of the Global Fellowship, which unites Boys’ Brigade movements around the world in many countries. We were going to have a jamboree at the headquarters in Hemel Hempstead and we had it in mind to have 150 or 200 people come from various places. But more than half of those we wanted to come were refused visas. Why? Because the boxes that were ticked as they applied for visas made it evident to those who had it in their power to grant the visas that they were not earning enough or secure enough in their places of work back home in these other countries. They thought that these people were really trying to slip into Britain to do all the dastardly things that we think these migrants are up to.

Similarly, I chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Haiti. Four years ago, there was an earthquake there of terrible proportions. Working with a number of NGOs and other well minded bodies, I was desperate to bring to this country people who could give us eyewitness accounts and help the British public better understand the plight of the country they came from. Once again, we simply could not get the visas because the people we were inviting were agriculturalists being paid $150 a month. Back home that is secure enough, but here, it is suggested that they wanted to escape from $150 a month in order to earn a jolly sight more at our expense. These are the feelings that prevail on the ground by ordinary people in the communities where the problems and the proper needs of the nation that we are talking about are to be played and acted out.

I will say one last word to pick up a point made a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord King, about the convulsions in the world in which we live. I cannot think how, but I had in my hands a copy of the Daily Mail—in my trade, confession is something that we believe in. There was a story splashed widely across its pages about the floods at the moment in the convulsed part of the world of the noble Lord, Lord King, and that we should be taking money our of the “bloated” DfID account to put into the relief we might offer the victims of floods across the land.

We must see a bigger picture than the one we are looking at now and congratulate the Government on maintaining the levels of support for overseas aid. It is by bringing better governance and more secure instruments of state to bear in poor and fragile countries that we will diminish the motivation for people to come out of their countries into other places. We must see the bigger picture.

It sounds like boasting when I talk about all the things I do, but my work on Haiti, under the aegis of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, includes bringing a delegation of Haitian parliamentarians here in the autumn, with the likelihood of them reciprocating. At the request of the Haitian Parliament, we seek to increase capacity for a parliamentary style of government in Haiti, which has not really known it: our Parliament with their Parliament. I promise Members of this House that the work we do of that kind, with its long-term outcomes, will benefit all of us who are preoccupied with the number of people who feel obliged to leave their native heath. I plead with your Lordships to keep the bigger picture in mind and feel the heart that beats in the communities affected by these proposals.

16:31

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, immigration features high on the agenda of all political parties. It has become one of the biggest public policy debates in recent times. It will also be one of the major issues that will dominate the general election in 2015. Immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. Despite the nature and effects of various immigration and asylum legislation in the past, the circumstances surrounding them remain contentious.

I do not dispute that all major political parties subscribe to fair and just immigration policies and procedures. The policy is to admit those who are eligible and to exclude, subject to the appropriate humanitarian principles, those who are not. However, the greater the emphasis on excluding the ineligible, the tougher are the rules introduced by successive Governments; and the more intensive these checks are and the more complicated they are to introduce, the more there is delay, denial and expense to those who are eligible. Is it any wonder that a culture develops over time where administrators are expected to deliver targets and results which often lack fairness and justice in the process?

Let me make it clear: we on this side of the coalition do not condone illegal immigration. We do not condone entry by those who do not qualify to be here. What I ask of the Government is to proclaim at the highest level the contribution that migrants make to the British economy. We need a shift in priorities towards greater emphasis on the rights of those who are eligible to enter the United Kingdom. It is time we stopped playing the numbers game and based our policies on the needs of our country.

Of course, it is right that migration policies take into account Britain's national interest, both economically and socially, and we must always put the safety and security of our citizens at the top of the agenda. There is no dispute about that, but we should avoid the temptation to ratchet up the system for political expediency. We must respond to the changes around us. The economy is no longer national, it is global.

Let me make one point. Whose brilliant idea was it to roll out immigration vans around our cities asking people to leave the country? The Home Secretary has recently admitted that that had not been such a good idea. I am not sure what the returns were, but little regard was paid to the hurt feelings of a large number of our diverse community lawfully settled in this country. I ask my noble friend to tell your Lordships’ House how many migrants returned as a direct result of that publicity. I am sure that the returns were not worth the cost of petrol used by the vans in our cities.

Have we reached the stage in this country when one has to carry one’s passport as proof of identity? The debate on immigration is so skewed that during Second Reading and Report in the House of Commons, not a single Member of Parliament outlined the benefits of immigration.

Let me declare my interests here. I am one of the vice-chairs of Migration Matters, a body ably chaired by Barbara Roche, the former Home Office Minister. It is a cross-party body that has done much to bring sanity to the ongoing debate on immigration. We have long believed that without a clear view of how immigration benefits Britain, it is difficult to understand the danger of indiscriminately cutting immigration or discouraging migrants from coming to the United Kingdom.

Let me spell out the three key benefits for Britain from properly managed migration. The first relates to skills. Britain’s public and private sectors need migrants’ skills. Figures from the Health and Care Social Information Centre show that more than one in four of NHS doctors are migrants. Without immigration, our health service would suffer. In industry, according to the CBI, we have major gaps in sectors such as engineering and IT. Without immigration, our firms would not be able to operate successfully or compete globally.

The second benefit relates to growth. Migrants’ contribution is essential for growth and reduces our debt. For example, the largest single group of migrants each year is international students. They make up almost 40% of new migrants and, according to the Government, contribute £18 billion in fees. This funds hundreds of jobs across the country, boosting tax revenues and reducing our debts.

The third benefit relates to investment. Investment in Britain by foreign businesses is worth billions of pounds to the UK economy. That is responsible for thousands of jobs. Do we really want to pass on a message that Britain is closed to business? Do we want to endanger that investment?

We ought to be clear. No one owes us a living. Either we remain as Little Englanders, or we play a full part in the global economy. The dangers of skewed public debate in the past few months are obvious. It has been characterised by hysteria and hyperbole, which makes rational discussion extremely difficult. The debate has been driven by UKIP in the run-up to the relaxation of transitional controls on Romanians and Bulgarians.

The Home Office is yet to produce any figures. No wonder UKIP is peddling figures which bear no resemblance to reality. UKIP leaflets claiming that 28 million Romanians and Bulgarians can now come to Britain have been pushed through letter boxes in Kent in the past few months. The reality and the evidence suggest that immigration from those countries will be moderate. I trust that the Minister will enlighten us with reliable statistics, so that we can nail such lies. The danger of such a toxic debate is that it sends a hostile signal to the rest of the world—in particular, to international investors, students and skilled workers, who boost Britain’s economy by billions of pounds each year—that we no longer need or want their contribution.

There are aspects of the Bill which we welcome. Then there are areas of concern which will require probing amendment in Committee. My noble friend the Minister commands great respect in this House, and I am sure he will listen to arguments that we will advance at that stage. Our purpose is to avoid the shambles we saw in the other place. We welcome the provision to deal with sham marriages and sham civil partnerships and will support further legislative changes to eradicate these practices, which are designed to evade immigration controls.

The Bill proposes a new referral and investigation scheme for proposed marriages and civil partnerships involving a non-EEA national subject to immigration controls. Will my noble friend the Minister accept that this does not solve the problem of a non-EEA national’s entering into a sham relationship in an EEA country? Has the Home Office discussed this matter with our European partners? The Home Office has no powers to prevent such marriages taking place in these countries, and no powers to deny entry to the UK if the couple decides to settle here. Will the Minister reflect on this and advise how he will deal with such arrangements?

We also welcome the provision of a statutory code of conduct and registration with the Immigration Services Commissioner by providers of immigration advice. The exploitation of clients by unscrupulous advisers is a matter of serious concern. While a code of registration applies to those providing such services in the United Kingdom, it does nothing to stop such practices abroad. Surely this is a matter that should be the basis of bilateral discussion whenever Ministers are on delegation abroad.

Then there is the serious issue in Part 6 to amend powers to deprive persons of British citizenship. We need to clarify how such powers are going to be used against those who do not have dual nationality. Will the Minister explain how a stateless person would leave the country? Where would he or she go? I note that this provision would affect only a small number of British citizens, and the matter is still a work in progress. It is right, however, that terrorists whose activities affect the safety and security of our nation should be dealt with by the full force of the law. We need to spell out if such a person has any residual and consequential rights similar to those of refugees and other stateless persons. The last thing we need, when we deprive citizens of citizenship, is for this to be used as a badge of honour by jihadis who cannot be deported. There are other issues which colleagues reflect upon. For the present, the Government have a golden opportunity to raise the level of debate on immigration matters. Let us hope that we will give a lead that will result in a fair and just immigration policy.

16:42

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, over the past weeks, I have received numerous requests by journalists from around the world because one of the seven schools that I attended was the Hyderabad Public School. The 46-year-old chief executive officer of Microsoft, Satya Nadella, also attended the Hyderabad Public School. He then went to the United States for his education and is now heading one of the world’s largest companies, with a market cap of $340 billion.

Earlier this afternoon, I attended a talk by the Governor-General of Canada, David Johnston. A huge part of his speech was about education and about Canada wanting to attract the best students from around the world. Like me, he came as a foreign student to Cambridge to read law. Is it not sad that, on 16 January, the Times Higher Education Supplement carried the headline “Overseas student total falls ‘for first time’ as Indian numbers collapse”? It went further and stated that,

“the number of non-EU students at UK universities fell by 1 per cent last year, the first such decline ever recorded”.

An NUS survey of more than 3,000 international students conducted in January found that 51% of non-EU students thought the UK Government unwelcoming. Meanwhile, in Canada, the Government aim to double the number of international students in Canadian educational institutions by 2022, raising the total to 450,000 yearly. In Australia, more than 74,000 student visa applications were lodged in the September 2013 quarter, 7.1% higher than the same period in 2012 and the highest for this quarter in the past four years. In France, the Government have moved to simplify the visa application process and to double the number of Indian students studying at French universities. Does the Minister have a target for increasing the number of foreign students in the UK, let alone of Indian students?

The Russell group has reported that the intakes of postgraduate students from India at its institutions dropped by 21% in 2011-12, with a further drop of 18% in 2012-13. Even the growth rate in new students from China has started to taper off. Meanwhile, postgraduate student numbers to the United States increased by 40% in 2013. Visas granted to Indian students across all levels in Australia have risen by 22% in the past year, following the introduction of a more open immigration policy, and visas granted to Indian students in Canada rose by 8% in 2012.

The Prime Minister talks about Britain having to take part in a global race yet the Government’s insistence is on following this madcap immigration cap policy and targeting bringing down the immigration level to the tens of thousands. This is shooting ourselves in the foot. What are the Government thinking of? Why do the Government keep including student numbers in the immigration figures when Canada, Australia and the United States—our immediate competitors—do not? Does the Minister agree that we should exclude foreign student numbers from the immigration figures? The Government might then hit their target but they should not do it for that reason: they should do it because this policy is sending out the wrong messages. The Prime Minister has said that there is no limit to the number of students that we want to come to study in the United Kingdom—I have heard him say that myself—so why are the Government not following the example of our counterparts in Canada and setting a target to double the number of foreign students coming into the United Kingdom?

In contrast, let us look at what is happening over here. The number of Indian students has fallen by 25% and the overall non-EU enrolment of overseas students has dropped from 173,560 to 171,910. The Government are sending out a negative message: that Britain does not want foreign students. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the perception of reality. The perception has become reality and the Government have been bringing out ridiculous ideas. When the idea of a £3,000 bond for foreign visitors was floated, it did not take long before the Government backtracked. However, it sent shockwaves around the world. I kept getting asked about this on every visit to India. Then the Government had the amazing idea of having vans going around the UK saying “Illegal immigrants go home”. I do not like quoting Nigel Farage but even he—a man perceived to be entirely anti-immigration—said:

“I think the actual tone of the billboards is nasty, unpleasant, Big Brother”.

There you have it.

There is no question that a lot needs to be done to reform immigration in this country. Illegal immigration is out of control. The noble Lord, Lord King, asked whether we know the numbers. Have we lost control of our borders? I think we have. The UK Border Agency was not fit for purpose and has been disbanded. Can the Government tell us the number of illegal immigrants in this country? I will let the Government round it up to the nearest 100,000 but I bet that they could not even give a figure. They do not even know whether it is half a million or a million. The coalition Government have given a manifesto commitment to reintroduce exit controls and there is matter in the Bill to address this. However, the Government should bring in mandatory scanning of all passports when people leave this country—whether they are British, EU or non-EU—and scan them when they come in. The technology is there for us to know who has come in, who has left and who has stayed when they should not be staying. We could then control illegal immigration. Why are the Government not doing that? The e-Borders programme is a step towards that but we could get to that step right now.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, the Government are right to crack down on sham marriages, but they are wrong to bring in landlord controls and ask the landlords to do the job of the border authority. Even the Minister responsible for the Bill, Mark Harper, could not find out the status of his own cleaner when he had tried hard to do so. This is impractical and I fear that it will be another government U-turn.

The proposed NHS fees are unwelcoming. As a former foreign student in this country, I know how expensive it is to study here. The average international student will spend something in the region of £75,000 during a three-year degree programme. A PhD student coming in with a spouse and children could pay thousands of pounds in advance for this. These fees will seem like a penalty charge and could be a powerful disincentive. In a survey carried out by the National Union of Students, 74% of the non-EU students surveyed, who would be subject to the charge, said that an additional charge of £150 per year of study would make it more difficult or impossible for them to study in the UK. The Minister said that the figure is only 1%, but the perception, unfortunately, is the reality. More than 82% of those with dependants say that free access to the NHS was important in their choice to study in the UK. The current visa fees are really expensive in any case and the Government have just announced a 40% increase for some additional family members. Why do we need NHS charges? Most students are young and healthy and do not use the NHS much. The Government have been penny wise and pound foolish.

On the matter of the appeals process and the changes proposed in this Bill, Universities UK notes that more than 50% of appeals by students are successful. If these measures are brought in they will be deprived. In the House in 2007 I initiated a debate on the two-year post-study work visa. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was the Education Minister answering at the time. He listened, the Government responded, it was brought in and we saw international student numbers go up. Even the Business Secretary disagrees with government policy on this. Vince Cable has said that around £17 billion is generated each year by universities, £10 billion of which comes from overseas students through their fees and expenditure. At last year’s Liberal Democrat party conference he warned that a lot of students who would normally come to Britain would go instead to America and Australia where they thought a “warmer welcome” would be given to them.

If students here want to work after this expensive education it is important for them to be able to pay for it, gain work experience, pay some taxes, and build the generation-long links with this country and their countries—and on the whole they go back to them. Three generations of my family have studied in this country. Moosung Lee, a PhD candidate at the University of Minnesota, notes that 27% of world leaders have been educated in the United States. The Americans are streets ahead of us. We are missing out as a result of this and we need to start thinking long term. Shutting down the bogus colleges was good, but we do not need to create a perception that what was true for them is true for our good universities as well.

My recommendations are as follows. First, student figures should be removed from the immigration figures to send out a clear message that we do not include them in the Government’s madcap immigration cap target. Secondly, a system in which everyone’s passports will be scanned in and out of the country, at all ports of entry, should be introduced as soon as possible. Thirdly, the Government should bring back the post-study work visa. The mechanism at the moment is not fit for purpose. Can the Minister tell me how many graduates have taken up work after they have graduated under the new scheme that the Government have initiated? Fourthly, NHS charges for students should not be brought in. Students are spending huge amounts of money here already. A fee of £150 a year is a classic example of being penny wise and pound foolish. Fifthly, the Government should scrap the ridiculous and impractical idea of landlords having to make checks on foreign nationals and especially students. Landlords are not immigration officials. Finally, the Government should reform the appeals process that is already flawed. They should not be bringing in a system that will make it worse. Already 50% of appeals by students are successful.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, Britain is a most amazingly fair and just country. London is the most cosmopolitan city in the world. Recently, I led a debate to mark the 150th anniversary of the Zoroastrian Trust Funds of Europe to ask Her Majesty’s Government how they have recognised and supported the role and contribution of faith and minority communities in Britain during Her Majesty’s reign. All of us who spoke in that debate were able to give scores of examples of the amazing contribution that immigrants have given to this country. We would not be where we are without the contribution of immigration. On the other hand, we know that people abuse this country’s generosity and the Government must clamp down on those excesses. However, the Government now have a system that creates negative perceptions and unfortunately those perceptions have become reality. The Government must stop going down this path before it is too late and this wonderful country is permanently damaged.

16:55

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, it is a huge pleasure to follow the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I declare an interest as a member of the Council of University College London.

Many aspects of the Bill have already been subject to debate today. I want to concentrate on its impact on overseas students, an aspect that the noble Lord touched on. I heard the Minister’s assurance today, but I have been unhappy with the direction of travel of government policy towards overseas students throughout the past few years and believe that the Bill exacerbates the impact of previous policies. Of course, nothing in what I say is designed to condone fraud of the kind uncovered in today’s “Panorama” programme, which the noble Lord, Lord King, referred to. I shall be drawing in particular on the briefings of both Universities UK and the National Union of Students, which are united in their views on the adverse impact of the Bill.

First, however, I join others in expressing my sympathy and regret at the honourable resignation of Mark Harper as Immigration Minister. I always found him extremely painstaking and courteous in carrying out his role. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, pointed out, this shows the difficulties inherent even among the most scrupulous people in complying with immigration legislation.

As noble Lords, with all their university links and responsibilities, will be well aware, international students in higher education alone contributed more than £10 billion to the UK economy in 2011-12, according to BIS. Their contribution to the local economies of university cities is enormous. The UK is the second most popular destination for international students. They are a crucial way for us to build cultural and academic links and to build global trade and investment relations for the future—soft power, in other words. They are a crucial resource for our higher education institutions and the UK as a whole yet, as UUK points out, new figures show that the total number of international students in UK universities fell for the first time on record by 1% in 2012-13—4.5% if China is excluded from the figures. Our share of a growing market is falling. We have yet to understand the precise causes, but many of us in this House have been warning the Government of the likely consequences of their changes to visa policy, particularly relating to post-study internships. We have already seen a marked reduction in students from India, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has pointed out.

No one quarrels with measures designed to prevent abuse of the immigration system, but if we do not redress the impression that students are not welcome then we will see further reductions from other countries. The key areas where this Bill creates that impression, and bears down counterproductively on overseas students, are threefold. First, there is the removal of visa appeal rights. The removal of their remaining rights of in-country appeal against the refusal of leave to remain is under Clause 11. In 2012-13 there were 98,800 decisions on Tier 4 extensions. Of those, I am informed that around 13% were refused yet, as we heard earlier, 50% of appeals are successful, which means that decisions were not correct in the first place. Sheffield Students’ Union says that 99% of its appeals are successful. It says that many of these decisions relate to family members. The loss of these appeal rights will also affect postgraduates such as academics and researchers.

The new administrative view that is being offered in certain circumstances will not be independent, and in some cases will in fact be carried out by the official who made the original decision. How can that be right? How on earth can overseas students have confidence that these decisions will be reviewed fairly? Surely, as they say, instead of abolishing the right of appeal in this way the Home Office should lay emphasis on improving processes and decision-making so that the number of appeals is reduced. If that is not possible, why can there not be an explicit exception for overseas students?

Then we have Part 3 of the Bill, which deals with the provision of services. The Bill introduces a new requirement for landlords to check a prospective tenant’s immigration status, except for halls of residence.

International students already face difficulties in securing accommodation and are often made to pay large advance payments of rent. Bookings of accommodation for students often have to be made well in advance at a time when overseas students cannot prove their immigration status. Landlords will be discouraged from letting accommodation to international students and staff, and they will be relegated to the back of the queue in the search for accommodation.

How can causing this kind of anxiety to young people coming here for the first time be the right way to welcome them? How can this lack of certainty encourage overseas academic staff to come and work in our universities? The fear of the student bodies that have briefed Members of this House is that this will lead to more discrimination against black and ethnic minority students when looking for housing.

Why are additional provisions required for students in the first place? Surely being vouched for by their university when the accommodation is occupied should be enough. After all, the risk of losing highly trusted sponsor status, as the NUS says, means that higher education institutions with virtually no exceptions are scrupulous in their monitoring of overseas students. The Residential Landlords Association and the British Property Federation have pointed out the problems, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, illustrated them in considerable detail. The NUS survey this month showed that 40% of international students believe that these landlord checks will negatively impact on their decision to study in the UK, and the figure was greater in the case of PhD students concerned about their spouse and children.

Last but not least, there is the proposed imposition of NHS charges on overseas students under the Bill. Granted that there will be a lower rate for overseas students under these proposals compared to the full £200 per annum, but why are we charging when, as UUK says, they are already making such a big economic contribution? The charge, it points out, will need to be paid upfront for the full duration of the visa. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out, for an academic with a number of dependants, this could be a significant amount of money, far more than in other countries, and a real deterrent to taking up employment here. On its own, charging for NHS services would not necessarily have been a major disincentive, but in combination with other aspects of the Bill, it certainly will be. Indeed, it will take away one of the attractions of coming to the UK. Why cannot overseas students and staff be totally exempt from the charges?

So this is a triple whammy and causes more damage to our reputation. A recent NUS survey of more than 3,000 students conducted this year found that half of non-EU students found the UK Government not welcoming towards them, and the number for postgraduate students was greater. We need to alter the perception that overseas students are not welcome in the UK. As the Minister knows, I and many Members of this House have argued that the inclusion of students in the net migration figures sends out all the wrong signals, especially considering the fact that these students are only temporary migrants. Even if the Home Office does not accept that argument, why can we not exclude overseas students from the provisions of this Bill to prevent further reputational, cultural and economic damage? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Flooding: Somerset

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:03

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a response to an Urgent Question made in the House of Commons by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.

“Mr Speaker, as is evident from the dark skies outside, we continue to face extraordinary and sustained wet weather. COBRA has met every day since my Oral Statement on Thursday with all departments working closely together, including my colleagues at Defra. We have made clear again that every resource is available to the local communities affected. We will keep providing whatever immediate practical support and assistance is needed, whether that is extra pumps and sandbags, military support on the ground or emergency funds from the severe weather assistance fund for local councils.

The Somerset moors and levels have been one of the areas hardest hit by the weather, with 65 million cubic metres of flood-water on the land. The rivers Tone and Parrett have been particularly affected by continued rainfall leading to heightened river levels. In total, people in 150 properties across the Somerset Levels, where there is a threat of severe flooding, have been advised to leave their homes. A rest centre has been established at Bridgwater. Military personnel have been tasked to work alongside local authorities, and are currently filling sandbags for deployment. Pumping continues, but it is challenging to keep pace with the inflow from the latest rainfall and levels are increasing in some areas. It is likely to take weeks to remove the sheer volume of flood-water once there is a significant break in the weather.

Across the Thames Valley and Surrey, the River Thames is rising, and bursting its banks in certain locations. A sandbag programme is in place at key points of vulnerability. A multiagency “gold command” has been set up in Croydon to co-ordinate the response locally, and a major incident has been declared. There is a high risk that the Thames, the Severn and the Wye will flood in the middle of the week. Local responders are actively engaged in planning and preparation.

As I told the House on Thursday, I commend the hard work of the emergency services, local authorities, the Armed Forces and the on-the-ground staff of the Environment Agency. As I said, there will be lessons to be learnt, including Environment Agency policies on issues such as dredging and how it spends its budget of £1.2 billion a year.

I note that the issue of international development funding has been touched upon over the weekend. Just as it was a false choice to cast town versus country, so it is wrong to pit helping the victims of flooding at home against those suffering abroad. We can and should help both; helping the plight of those facing the awfulness of flooded homes in Britain as well as taking action to help malnourished children dying from dirty water abroad. But I also believe taxpayers’ money should be well spent, and that applies to quangos just as much as it does to the international aid budget. By spending money wisely, we can better meet our moral obligations first to Britain and then to the world. But the first and primary obligation of Her Majesty’s Government is defence of this realm: urban and rural, city and county, and that is what we are doing”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

17:07

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for repeating the response to the UQ asked in another place. In doing so he made reference to the Somerset Levels. It will be a considerable relief to those living and farming on the Somerset Levels that the Army has been made available to assist with efforts to protect homes, farms and other businesses. Combined with the efforts of the fire and rescue service, police, Environment Agency staff, local government workers and many volunteers, it is clear that there is finally a concerted effort being made in responding to the floods. However, does the Minister understand the anger and frustration that it took so long for this level of response to be organised by the Government, considering the fact that many people have been dealing with rising water levels since before Christmas? In particular, given that unemployment in the south-west is rising and employment is falling, can the Minister provide an update on the work going into restoring the vital rail connectivity to Devon and Cornwall? Have Ministers formally asked Network Rail to present options for long-term solutions to the vulnerability of this line, including rerouting?

[Lord De Mauley]

First, I say to the noble Lord that I absolutely understand the frustration and the feelings of those who have been directly affected by these frankly awful weather events. We are doing whatever we can to make sure that properties of people are protected from flooding. Our efforts have meant that 1.2 million properties which would have been flooded since December have not been flooded.

The noble Lord asks specifically about Network Rail. I can tell him that Network Rail is developing strategies for securing the long-term resilience of the railways. Over the next five years, the operator has asked the Office of Rail Regulation for nearly half a billion pounds to invest in resilience improvement projects. In terms of the present, Network Rail engineers are on-site at a number of locations in the south-west, doing all they can to make repairs where the weather conditions permit.

17:10

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, while applauding the work that is being done to try to help people in the stricken areas, particularly the Somerset Levels, can we look for a moment at the longer term? My noble friend told us last Thursday that,

“the Secretary of State has asked for a clear action plan for the sustainable future of the Somerset Levels and moors to resolve the problem for the next 20 years”.—[Official Report, 6/2/14; col. 264.]

Can I draw my noble friend’s attention to a recently published article by Dr Colin Clark, who is an extremely well known hydrologist, in charge of the Charldon Hill research centre in Somerset? The article is entitled, “Floods on the Somerset Levels: a Sad Tale of Ignorance and Neglect”—over the past 20 years. While having to deal with the crisis now is obviously absolutely crucial, I hope that the action plan will take account of the extremely important points made in Dr Clark’s article, where he identifies in some considerable detail—

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, we have 10 minutes altogether for the UQ.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

He says in considerable detail what actually should be done.

[Lord De Mauley]

I thank my noble friend for that. It is one of the helpful pieces of advice that is coming in. One issue that has been raised from a lot of quarters is that of dredging, which is only one part of flood maintenance work. Evidence shows that other maintenance activities, such as maintaining pumps, sluice gates and raised embankments, can sometimes provide better value for money in terms of protecting communities from flooding. The effectiveness of dredging in managing flood risk will therefore continue to be assessed on a location-by-location basis in full discussion with local communities and landowners. But I take my noble friend’s advice.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, in one respect, the Minister’s Statement is a bit disappointing, because the very long term is what we also need to consider. Does he not agree that the Government need to recognise increasingly that we have to mitigate against climate change, which is increasingly threatening us? There is a serious risk—and it is not only in Somerset; there is a much wider problem that we might be embarking on, as most scientists would agree.

[Lord De Mauley]

I certainly do not disagree with that myself, my Lords. The noble Lord makes a really important point. Not only should we adapt to it, which is the substance of what we are talking about today, but we need to mitigate it as well.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords—

[Baroness Northover]

I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I have a very similar question. The speed at which water is now running from hillsides and from urban areas—tarmac and concrete—is part of the problem, coupled with the extreme weather events that we are now seeing. Catchment management is critical to try to reduce and mitigate the risk. I hope that the department is taking that very seriously.

[Lord De Mauley]

We spoke about that in the debate on the Statement last week, at which stage I said how seriously the Government take that strategy.

[The Lord Bishop of Worcester]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s Statement. As we all know, attention has rightly focused on the Somerset Levels and the terrible plight that people are enduring there, but when I left Worcester this morning the city was gridlocked as a result of the closure of the main bridge across the river and the situation remains acute. I do not want to apportion blame; I want to pay tribute to those who are working very hard and to the understanding and graciousness of the inhabitants of Worcester. However, it is true that the implications of this will be enormous, economically and from a human point of view. Can the Minister confirm that a coherent policy will be forthcoming for all the affected areas, not just those most terribly affected?

[Lord De Mauley]

The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right—I can confirm that. We have finite resources and must apportion them in a proper way, in accordance with priorities, and the priorities must be human life and property. While I am at the Dispatch Box, can I say that, although I have not given them credit, I know that the churches in Somerset in particular are playing a major part in helping people affected by this dreadful tragedy?

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply to the Question that we had in another place. Does he agree with me that the last thing that all those who are suffering want to hear is people arguing among themselves? As well as helping them now, we must look to the future and make sure that, whatever we put in place, we have enough money to maintain it when it is there.

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree, my Lords. It is very important that we focus on the job in hand. The Prime Minister has asked the Minister for Government Policy to undertake an exercise to see what lessons can be learnt from our response to this extreme bad run of bad weather.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, to what extent has the Environment Agency’s action or inaction, particularly in the Somerset Levels, been influenced or dictated by Brussels? For instance, was the dredging of any water courses prevented by the EU and, if so, why?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in a time of a great tragedy for people down on the Somerset moors, it is a shame to seek to place recriminations. We should be getting on with the job in hand.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

Is my noble friend aware that there have been one or two most unfortunate reports of theft of fuel from some of the abandoned properties? Can he assure me that every possible effort is being made by the police and anyone else who is helping, including the Army, to make sure that these properties are secure? Will he ensure that proper recognition is given to what seems to be an enormously welcome—particularly to the farmers—voluntary movement of substantial supplies from other farms around the region, and give every encouragement to that?

[Lord De Mauley]

I am aware of that, we have spoken about it today and I am hugely grateful for the support coming in from around the West Country in particular, as well as from further afield, in terms of supplies for farms and so on. It is extremely generous of people. On his point about theft, I strongly sympathise with people who are forced to leave their homes. Of course they will secure them as they leave, just as they would when going to work. Regrettably, there are those who seek to capitalise on people’s misfortunes, and I can assure my noble friend that the police are patrolling and monitoring in the area.

[Baroness Billingham (Lab)]

My Lords, this flooding is a catastrophe for those who are living through and having to get through the present situation. However, we are using sticking plasters and not really dealing with the major, underlying problem. Is it not time that the Government, in order to enable the Environment Agency to do the work that we need it to do, reinstated the £100 million cut from its budget?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware, because I have said it enough times from this Dispatch Box, that we are spending a huge sum of money on flood defences. We will continue to do so and, indeed, have made a commitment for six years into the future. I have not heard the Environment Agency say that a shortage of funds is the problem in this case.

Immigration Bill

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (Continued)

17:17

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, we return to migration. I was struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, when he asked us to remember things while we debated the Bill. Indeed, my theme, which may come to somewhat different conclusions, is about those whose immigration status here is out of order. That is basically my only theme. I should like to suggest some things that we might do well to remember while considering what to do about those whose immigration status is out of order.

Man, as we know, is an economic animal, has always migrated and will continue to do so. However, there is great pressure in today’s world on that willingness to move. There are no frontiers left. In the early years of the 20th century, more than 1 million people went through Ellis Island every year. There is no longer such capability. Some countries are willing to take substantial numbers of people, but nothing of the order that used to apply—and, of course, the world’s population has dramatically increased. In these circumstances, the utilitarian calculation of economic benefit versus loss is simply not adequate.

I learnt that long ago. I was, in an unlikely way, managing a steel foundry in Light Pipe Hall Road, Stockton-on-Tees, when the first people from the Indian subcontinent came, around the time of Suez. I took on a labourer whose name—I hope I will be forgiven—was Patel. After about a fortnight, the TGWU shop steward came to me and said: “John, do you know about this labourer you have taken on?”. “Tell me”, I said. “He lives with seven others, they call themselves brothers but I don’t think they are related. They live in a two-up, two-down terraced house and sleep in shifts”. “Well?”, I said. He said: “The lads don’t like it”. I do not know what the effect on that particular street was at the time. I suppose one could put the wonderful label of social cohesion on it somewhere. The problem solved itself, or maybe somebody found a solution for it, because Patel and his brothers went to Bradford where it is not quite as cold as it is on Teeside and where there were more of their brothers.

At the same time, incidentally, I learnt another thing. People are very good and, sensibly, know when it is right not to know the answer to things and be able to say: “I cannot cope. I do not know how to do this”. Yet if they had a roll-up and some mixed doubles put on at the local bookie by Eddie Rollinson and it came up, there would be no difficulty about knowing how much was to be distributed. Whatever the economic and social issues of people living without their immigration status being correct, the question of the law and what to do about it will remain with us. If there are indeed between 300,000 and 500,000 such people, or whether the figure is different, we have a real problem. We should also remember that this is not just about economic and social issues: there is a connection with security.

So what should happen? We have a choice. As suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the right reverend Prelate, if you have people whose documents are out of order and you think it would be right for them to stay, then every effort should be made to put their documents right. It should not just be left that there is nothing one can do. If their documents cannot be put right, because the law does not allow it, then they should leave. Is that an unreasonable view? I do not think so: it has some element of reality in it.

At the moment, we need to relieve unsustainable pressures and manage this country of 60 million people and a medium-sized economy. While we are doing that, there are some things I suggest we remember. Our liberal democratic philosophy is at a discount out there in the world. There is no queue at the moment to join in. After Iraq, Afghanistan, South Sudan and Syria we have neither the will nor the means to do anything about it. Maybe we should talk less and listen more, and even remember that the Russians may—certainly do—know a great deal more about Islam that we do. It might, therefore, behove us to concentrate on managing our own affairs.

In this respect, we have 2.3 million unemployed people. If, through a combination of economic growth, education and training, and employers, who always talk their own book, doing as much about the training as possible, we could drive unemployment down by half a million people, we would make a great difference to the immigration pressures that exist. If teachers succeeded in managing our schools as well as they could be managed, and if we managed our hospitals as well as they could be managed, then maybe the problem of people who are here but do not have the right to stay would come to be seen as a great deal easier than is sometimes suggested. In an open and democratic society, is it unreasonable to ask, “Who are you?”, “Where do you come from?”, “Is your immigration status okay?” or “Is your family’s immigration status okay?”? There does not seem to be anything in that kind of inquiry that could not be handled in an adult democracy. Who supports people staying here without the right to do so without that being put right? Does anybody support that?

Of course, this matter has become a great muddle—life does from time to time become a great muddle—but is it not sensible to have a go at sorting it out every now and again with all the difficulties of achieving success? In respect of those whose documents are not in good order, this Bill is a step in the right direction.

17:26

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I share the concerns set out by other noble Lords about the impact of the Bill, and I want to focus my remarks on the position of students. However, before I do that, I express my concern about the effect of the Bill on children—specifically migrant children.

An excellent briefing from the Refugee Children’s Consortium alerted me to the dangers to the safety and well-being of thousands of children which, it argues, are inherent in the Bill. The Government want to encourage those with no legal right to be in the UK to “go home”, but of the 120,000 undocumented children living in the UK, the majority were born here or have spent most of their young lives here. They include unaccompanied children who have been brought here for exploitation, those fleeing war or those who have been abandoned by their carers. This is the only home they know. If the proposed measures in the Bill, including those on access to healthcare, access to housing and narrowing of appeal rights, further increase destitution and homelessness, they will put more vulnerable children and young people at risk of exploitation and abuse. I share the hope of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester that the Minister will use his reply today to say something about how the Government propose to protect these children.

Turning to the impact of the Bill on international students and staff, I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Council of University College London. In bringing forward this Bill, the Government are responding to widely held concerns about the impact of immigration. We have already heard that this evening a “Panorama” programme will expose new allegations of abuse by private companies helping visa applicants to defraud the system. If it is true, it is very serious. The reputation of the UK education sector as a whole relies on robustness on immigration rules from all quarters.

Members of this House will know that Universities UK has campaigned for a more welcoming visa policy. What may not be so well known is that, alongside this, it has been working with the Home Office to improve the way that the compliance system works—running joint events with the Home Office involving hundreds of university employees, improving guidance and developing a familiarisation programme for the Home Office Higher Education Assurance Team. Universities have put literally millions of pounds into upholding their responsibilities in the immigration system, but fraud in one part of the system damages all parts of it. Universities have worked hard to eliminate abuse and we want to keep it that way without discouraging genuine students from coming to study here. That is why I am joining so many others in urging the Government not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Yes, we need robust rules, properly enforced. Yes, we must acknowledge concerns about immigration, but we should do neither of these things at the expense of the wider national interest.

Studies by the Migration Observatory and others have shown that the public are much more positive about the contribution that students make to this country. They recognise that students are not migrants in the usual sense of the word, despite the fact that this Government’s net migration target counts them as such. The Government, from the Prime Minister down, explicitly recognise how much this country gains from the outstanding track record of our universities in attracting international students. We earn more than £10 billion a year as the second most popular destination for students. Committees of this House, such as those led by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Krebs, have shown that the benefits are lasting; they create valuable links with countries all over the world and are valued by business and diplomats. If this Bill damages our ability to attract students—and I believe that it does—it damages the UK.

Four aspects of the Bill concern me: the removal of appeal rights; landlord immigration checks; the NHS surcharge; and measures to make it easier for the Secretary of State to increase visa fees. Many noble Lords will recall the debates in this House during the passage of the then Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill when rights of appeal were removed for a large number of visa cases, including for initial entry clearance for students and others. This was despite overwhelming evidence that the quality of initial decision-making was very poor, so that success on appeal was high. Not much appears to have changed. Success on appeal is just under 50%. What can be the justification for removing the right to challenge decisions? We are told, as we were in 2006, that administrative review will be an effective replacement. I agree with others, including the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, who argue that administrative review is useful but that it should exist in addition to, and not instead of, the right of appeal. If officials get a decision wrong, there should be a mechanism for correcting it by administrative means. That would reduce the number of decisions successfully appealed. It is wrong to remove the scope for an independent judgment where so much may hang on the outcome of immigration decisions.

The second aspect which concerns me is the new requirement on landlords to check the immigration status of tenants. Debate in another place has shown how unlikely this is to be workable. Private landlords are not immigration lawyers and I am concerned that, faced with a very wide range of documents, they will simply let accommodation to people who appear to be British. This could lead to discrimination on racial grounds which could affect a wide range of people who are lawfully in this country. Students and university staff would be particularly hit, because the measures in the Bill would make it difficult to secure accommodation in advance of arriving in the UK. This will need real scrutiny in Committee.

Thirdly, the new NHS surcharge will add to the upfront costs associated with coming to the UK. The Government have made the welcome decision to set a lower charge for students and that is a positive step. My view—one which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—is that the Government should think again about whether they should be charging them at all. Given the long-term and short-term benefits which the UK derives from students, the addition of yet another charge is characteristically short-sighted.

Finally, the Bill contains an interesting set of proposals about visa fees and charges. They were not much debated in another place, and I suspect that this House will want to know more about the degree of scrutiny that we will be able to exercise over proposed increases. Visa fees have been rising rapidly and we know that they are set to rise further. Will the Minister reassure the House that, in setting fees, particularly for students, the Secretary of State will have regard to fee levels in competitor countries? This matters because we know our competitors—the US, Australia, Canada and Germany—are doing everything they can to attract more international students. While our Government come up with new restrictions, barriers and costs, our competitors are removing barriers and increasing incentives.

The Minister may say that the UK continues to attract the brightest and best. Has he seen the latest HESA figures, which other noble Lords have already mentioned? These show that the total number of international students in the UK has fallen—so far by 1%, but this is significant because it is the first time that a decrease has been recorded. New enrolments are also down, for the second year in a row. The number of students from India has dropped by a staggering 49% in two years. In an expanding market, what a lost opportunity this is. When will the Government stop being complacent about this? International higher education is a phenomenal success story for the UK. The Government should support it wholeheartedly. The measures in this Bill will not help, and I hope we will be able to do something about this as the Bill passes through this House.

17:35

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, UK Visa and Immigration is still floundering in the unreliable IT systems and casework backlog left by the troubled UKBA when the Home Secretary abolished it last March and there is nothing in this Bill to deal with the quality of decision-making, which has not improved since that change. Now we are placing new demands on UKVI that, in the words of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, it,

“is not equipped or able to meet and gives it powers that it cannot be relied upon to exercise properly”.

I agree with my noble friend the Minister about separating myth from reality. The views on immigration that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, said were widely held were influenced by false notions of the numbers of immigrants encouraged by the Daily Mail. In an Ipsos MORI poll in June 2013, people questioned thought that immigrants made up 31% of the population, whereas the true figure was 13%. In the latest statistics, immigration for work was down by 12% on the previous year; there was a 7% fall in work-related grants to stay permanently, and non-EEA family visas were down by 20% to the lowest figure since comparable records began in 2005.

These facts are not well advertised, leaving UKIP and the Daily Mail free to create fear in the minds of the public. We saw this in the totally unjustified hysteria over the floods of Bulgarians and Romanians who were allegedly ready to invade the country on 1 January, when the hordes of newsmen greeting a flight from Bucharest were disappointed to find that only two of the passengers were Romanian.

One of my fears is that many dependants are being denied leave to enter because of the £18,600 income threshold applied to the sponsor and the refusal to consider other resources available to a couple, such as the earning potential of the applicant or the provision of free accommodation by the sponsor’s parents or other relatives. There is nothing in the Bill to correct breaches of Article 8—the right to family life—and, indeed, Clause 14 tries to coerce the courts into interpreting Article 8.2 more restrictively by telling them what weight they are to give to certain factors. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has commented adversely on this attempt to bend the decisions of the courts in directions which may conflict with case law, and we shall have to look at this in detail when we come to the Committee stage.

I also fear that substituting this administrative review for the right of appeal against all immigration decisions, except asylum and human rights claims, is bound to lead to injustice. Half the appeals by economic migrants and students are successful, the majority of them on the basis of factual error by the decision-maker. Half of entry clearance appeals and a third of deport appeals are also successful, as the right reverend Prelate said. The common-sense answer would have been to train caseworkers to get the initial decisions right instead of taking away people’s appeal rights. There is already an administrative review by the Home Office presenting officer when he is preparing for the appeal. That process does not pick up hundreds of wrong decisions, as the appeals statistics show.

How will this review approach the many decisions which are not in accordance with the law because they were not in accordance with the rules or did not deal properly with the evidence? Will the review accept representations from the applicant or her representative? Will the process be conducted behind closed doors? Instead of accepting that officials rubber-stamp their own colleagues’ decisions, appellants may either seek to reconfigure their cases as human rights challenges or, if that is not on the cards, to proceed by way of judicial review.

The appeals impact statement suggests that 5,600 extra judicial reviews may be started as a result of this process and up to 1,000 granted permission. These cases will cost a lot more than if they had been heard before the First-tier Tribunal and there will be further expenditure when costs are claimed or damages sought. The impact assessment does not go into the arithmetic on this but I am sure the Home Office has the figures. I should be grateful if the Minister would let us have them.

On bail, there is nothing in the Bill to deal with the scandal of long-term detention of individuals who pose no threat to national security. Some 5% of immigration detainees are held for more than a year and another 7% or 8% for between six months and a year. That is surely intolerable and we should require the independent chief inspector, John Vine, to carry out regular annual inspections of the long-term detention of immigrants. For the past few years, while immigration has been declining, the number in detention has been rising steadily. I should be grateful if the Minister would say how much has been spent on the detention estate since the coalition came into office. How does the Treasury view the plans for an even bigger estate?

I have difficulty also with the decision to allow the Secretary of State to deprive a person of his citizenship if it was acquired by naturalisation and she is satisfied that while a citizen the person conducted himself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. The instant she makes an order under Clause 60, if the person has no other citizenship he becomes stateless and has only a retrospective right of appeal under the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.

Did the Government consult the UNHCR, the guardian of the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, before including this clause in the Bill? Did they consider providing some form of external scrutiny over the powers in Section 40 of the 1981 Act, which are being exercised on an increasing scale? In 2013, 20 people were stripped of their UK citizenship, which was more than in all the previous years since the original power was introduced in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

On health tourism, the Bill contains only enabling provisions but the intention is that non-EEA migrants granted leave to enter for more than six months will be required to pay a surcharge, like an insurance premium, to cover the cost of any NHS treatment that they may need, which is reasonable. But all other non-EEA visitors coming for shorter periods of up to six months are liable to be charged at the point of accessing treatment after the initial contact with a GP, for which registration will be required. Did Ministers consider the representations we have all had from Maternity Action and the Royal College of Midwives about the harmful effects this will have on pregnant women among the 500,000 estimated undocumented migrants, including not only the short-term visitors but also refused asylum-seekers and visa overstayers? They may be deterred from seeking antenatal care and, as a result, develop health resource intensive conditions later on or potential harm to the unborn child.

Obviously I welcome the statutory prohibition of child detention, even though it is still subject to the exceptions that were agreed in 2010. At the Report stage in another place, the Home Secretary said that the Government would provide a separate legal basis for pre-departure accommodation. I am wondering whether that refers to the short-term holding facilities at Heathrow and other points of entry, which the Independent Monitoring Board has condemned as,

“unsuitable for use overnight or at any time by children”.

There is now at last a plan for improvements, due to start in April and to be completed by December 2014. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that the project at Heathrow is still on course.

I also welcome the introduction of universal embarkation checks in 2015, which are provided for in Schedule 8 and seem to have escaped the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. We already screen about two-thirds of passengers leaving the UK using advance passenger information. I understand that that will go up to 75% on all routes and 90% of all air passengers next month. To complete the picture, data on the remaining passengers will have to be collected at the border by carrier and port operator staff. Those persons are already involved in outbound passenger processes, so the additional work required of them will be minimal.

As the Public Accounts Committee said in July 2013, estimates of annual migration are based at present on the International Passenger Survey sample of 5,000 migrants and are subject to a wide margin of error. I congratulate the Government on eliminating that uncertainty and collecting information, as has been long advocated by the Liberal Democrats. It is of importance to our national security and to the effective enforcement of our immigration laws.

17:45

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may start by saying to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that all Patels are brothers and sisters, and that they never do anything illegal knowingly.

To get back to more serious matters, I guess that the Minister must be heartened that we are nearly half way through.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

We are not even half way.

[Lord Patel]

He will not have heard many supporters of this Bill and he is not likely to hear more. I will try not to repeat much that has already been said but I hope to add to it. Noble Lords must not misunderstand me: I feel strongly about the issues already raised, particularly those related to universities, students and health charges. I will also mention briefly the effect that the Bill may have on other vulnerable groups, particularly pregnant women and children.

I declare an interest: I am chancellor of the University of Dundee and, rather unusually, still hold a professorship at the same university in obstetrics. Fortunately, I have not been called on for any services to be delivered for a while.

As has already been mentioned, Universities UK, which represents vice-chancellors of bona fide universities—we are not talking about bogus universities which might be mentioned in the “Panorama” programme—feels strongly that a Bill that will,

“remove appeal rights for students and staff applying for further leave to remain … introduce a surcharge for access to NHS services … require private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants … increase the scope for government to raise fees for visas and immigration services”,

is fundamentally flawed. It believes that,

“it would be in the wider interests of the UK to exempt international students from the effects of the Bill”.

I would add postgraduate students to that list.

It has already been mentioned that, according to government figures, international students in higher education contributed £10.2 billion to the UK economy. We have already heard that it has been recorded for the first time that there was a drop of about 1% in students in 2012-13. To give some more detailed figures, as regards the total entrants by subject from non-EU countries, in STEM subjects there was a drop in 2011-12 of 8% and a further 2% in 2012-13. These are official figures.

In some STEM subjects, for instance in veterinary science, there was a 22% drop; in medicine and dentistry, there was a 6% drop; and in computer science, there was an 11% drop. While the drop has not been as significant in some non-STEM subjects, a trend is beginning to show. It is even demonstrated in postgraduate students and, more importantly, it is now beginning to show in research students. What is fundamental is that the trend is downwards.

We have to ask why, when people like me once considered the United Kingdom to be the prime place to go for undergraduate and postgraduate education, they now are trying to go somewhere else. It is a compound effect of the visa restrictions, increased charges and now the other charges that this legislation would impose. Some 32% of post-docs are from non-EU countries. They often come with their families. This Bill will make it more expensive for them.

Much has already been said about students and I support all that, so I come now to Clauses 33 and 34, which relate to NHS charges. I fully accept that there is a need to protect the public purse by limiting access to healthcare in some circumstances and preventing the deliberate misuse of scarce resources. However, any measures we introduce should be practical, necessary, appropriate and, to borrow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, evidence based. The Bill introduces a change to the residency criteria in Clause 34 so that eligibility for free NHS services is dependent on migrants having indefinite leave to remain. How many migrants who do not have indefinite leave to remain are working, paying tax and making national insurance contributions? Is it equitable that they should also pay the charges?

I am also concerned about the equity of these changes as there are significant variations in the time it takes for individuals to become eligible for indefinite leave to remain. The introduction of the health surcharge could also make the UK a less attractive destination for skilled workers from outside the EEA, particularly in shortage areas such as the National Health Service. Everybody here is familiar with the sight of lots of doctors and many more nurses from non-EU countries in our hospitals. They might have come here to train and remained here.

There are other issues too. The rationale given for the changes, in the impact assessment accompanying the Bill, is that the current arrangements are too generous and leave the NHS open to abuse. The Department of Health commissioned a two-phase independent audit of visitors and temporary migrants using the NHS. The Government brought in the legislation based on this. I am concerned that the Government’s proposals could create unintended drawbacks for the NHS and for patients in particular. The proposals are likely to create a complex patchwork of charging and access entitlements where some services, such as GP appointments, remain free while others, including A&E visits, will be charged for.

The Bill also introduces changes to residency criteria so that eligibility for free NHS services depends on migrants having indefinite leave to remain, as I already mentioned. However, a medical student who comes to the UK on a Tier 4 visa and remains on that visa for seven or eight years to finish the undergraduate course and then goes on to a Tier 2 visa because he needs postgraduate training would take 10 to 12 years to get indefinite leave to remain. Is that equitable? Why should he be penalised for 10 years?

I am also concerned that proposals for a health surcharge in Clause 33 risk having a negative impact on the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for skilled workers, particularly in shortage occupations where the economy cannot find sufficient workers either from the UK or the EEA workforce. In the UK, consultants in emergency medicine, haematology and old-age psychiatry are on the shortage occupation list. Non-consultants and non-training medical posts—most of the junior doctors you often see in the hospital—in anaesthesia, general medicine and psychiatry are also on the list. There are many more specialties now being added because of the shortage. The health surcharge, when combined with visa application fees and maintenance requirements, risks having an impact on the UK’s ability to attract high-quality migrants in medical jobs on the shortage occupation list. This could clearly have a negative impact on healthcare.

The Bill also includes provision for migrants who have paid the health surcharge to be able to access free NHS care to the same extent as a permanent resident. However, it also allows for exclusion from free access to be specified for particularly expensive discretionary treatments. It is not stated why, if the initial payment is considered to be fair, appropriate and comprehensive, there will also be discretionary payments for some high-risk conditions and the Bill does not state what they are. It gives the overall impression that, if you want to come to this country for study or work, it will cost you.

The issue of pregnant women was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. There are potential health impacts for pregnant women from Clauses 33 and 34. The proposed changes will deter some pregnant women from seeking and accessing maternity care. This will have a negative impact on the health of these women and their babies and perversely will lead to a need for more medical care at a greater cost. Charges at the point of care create risks that women will not present to the NHS, will present late in pregnancy or will be denied access because of their inability to pay. This prevents midwives and doctors from giving the appropriate health advice and treatment early in pregnancy. It cannot be right to include pregnant women.

The newspaper headlines say that the number of babies born to immigrant mothers is increasing, but the papers do not clearly define immigrant mothers. I guess anybody who is not white might be an immigrant mother. Anybody who might be white but is known to come from another European country will also be regarded as an immigrant. An exemption from NHS charges for all pregnant women and children is required in this Bill.

In short, I hope that we will see all students and postgraduates removed from this Bill before it becomes law and that NHS charges for pregnant women and children will also be removed. That is what I hope the Minister will accept and what I will be looking for in the amendments I will bring.

17:57

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak after my noble friend Lord Patel. I just wish that I had his experience. However, I can declare a relevant interest. Apart from being an academic at Imperial College, where I hold a chair, I am also the chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University, I am on the council of Surrey University and I am chairman of the Royal College of Music. As far as I am aware, I have not delivered a baby at any of these institutions. However, I think that that broad experience is quite relevant to this debate, as is the fact that over the past three or so years I have probably spoken in about one-third of British universities and have met overseas students from every Russell group university.

Therefore, I think I can say with some assurance that I am a bit surprised at the Minister’s apparent complacency with his speech. He is widely respected in this House and his lovely manner belies what is a pretty cruel Bill, which is a very serious issue for us. One of the things the Minister said was that this Bill strikes the right balance. In my view, it clearly does not, as pretty well every speaker has said. Secondly, the Minister asserted that the figures for overseas students had held steady. That is not true. Admittedly the overall 1% fall is trivial and could be a statistical freak but there is plentiful evidence that numbers of the key students who we really need in this country are falling, particularly in the STEM subjects where there is the greatest contribution to our national economy and that of our universities. Thirdly, he said that the NHS contribution is designed as a fair contribution. It is not a fair contribution because most students who come to this country are young, fit people who will not require National Health Service treatment. When I was a post-doc, I went as a research fellow to Belgium. I took with me not only my long-suffering wife, who is sitting near the Chamber, but also my baby daughter. One of the assurances that I had when going on that year’s trip was the recognition that if my daughter fell ill she would have free treatment. In general, that is something that has been an important principle.

If the figures for coming into this country as an overseas student are indeed almost holding steady, that is because of the outstanding education students receive at British universities. It has nothing to do with easier access to the UK, which is the implication. The access is quite clearly not easy. It is complacent to suggest otherwise.

It worried me, too, when the noble Lord, Lord King, seemed to say that this Bill was partly needed to appease—and I am paraphrasing, so forgive me—public opinion. I do not think that we should be appeasing public opinion if it is the wrong legislation.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

I did not say that and the noble Lord was embarrassed when he tried to say that I did. I was simply saying that it is no good for the country to feel that there is no concern about problems that are coming up over illegal immigration and abuse of the immigration system. It is our responsibility in Parliament to help command public confidence, otherwise we will face a much more serious situation in the future.

[Lord Winston]

I accept what the noble Lord said and I bow to his great experience as a previous Secretary of State. None the less, one of the issues, surely, is that we need to engage with the public so that they recognise what is good for the country and what is less good for the country. I fear that the Bill does not do that, which is a problem.

I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said in his outstanding speech, with all the figures that he gave, but the complacency is surprising. I know that it is out of order to show a document in the House, so I will not raise it to shoulder level. But a document from the Home Office, which is 167 pages thick, arrived this afternoon before the debate. There was no possibility of being able to absorb this information, which is so detailed, about why the Home Office justifies this legislation.

We should recognise that there is a deep-seated concern outside the United Kingdom about the way that students are greeted in this country. I say that as a regular visitor to Caltech, which is of course in California, and an irregular visitor to Harvard, Johns Hopkins University and the University of California, most recently. Invariably, in all the laboratories there are outstanding students—particularly Indian students—all of whom are convinced that we are not open for business. When we mentioned that to Home Office Ministers giving evidence to the Science and Technology Committee, it was consistently denied. It also transpired, when we asked the border control agency and the Home Office Ministers who were representing the Government at those inquiries, that none of them could give us clear figures about which students were going through customs, broken down into how many were from Russell group universities and how many were studying STEM subjects. That is a big deficiency because those are particularly the people we want to keep.

There is unquestionable evidence from students that they are concerned about the amount they pay for visas, and there is a suggestion that over the next 10 years that amount of money overall might raise around £700 million. Perhaps the Minister can correct me when he comes to reply. So £200 per annum for the National Health Service may not seem much to people like ourselves, who are, after all, well off. But let us cast our minds back to when we were students. Most of us did not actually have to pay fees. Students who are paying fees are looking for every single penny, no matter where they come from. The last thing they want to be is a burden on relatives or friends. If they can go somewhere where they will be less of a burden, they will undoubtedly increasingly choose those universities.

I want to tell the Minister what one of my students at Imperial College said: “Stop treating us like money machines”. That is a very real issue for our students. How is that £200 arrived at? What would it raise? How many students will use the NHS? Who will organise it through the NHS bureaucracy? What will be the cost to the NHS to make sure that this impost is paid? Lots of figures have been bandied around about how much extra those students from outside the EU bring in. It may be £7.9 billion or £11.3 billion, which is the biggest figure that I have seen. But even that does not take into account, for example, the entire intellectual property that is produced by overseas students. My colleague, Dr Carol Readhead and I have produced 25 patents and spun out a company at Imperial College. Most of the IPR was actually generated closely in conjunction with the university at Caltech, and without the patent lawyers in California I could not have established that company in London. That is an important point to be made.

Imperial College, like the Royal College of Music, is a good example of where it will be a colossal problem if the Bill goes through as it is. It is worth bearing in mind that 68.3% of Imperial College’s fee income comes from international students compared with 31% of the student body. We should look at those figures for a moment and understand what they mean. I hope particularly that our Liberal Democrat friends will recognise them when it comes to amendments. We have been left with a crashing problem with the rise in student fees. Frankly, international students are subsidising the education of British students to a real extent. At Imperial College, it will cost at least £30,000 to £35,000 for an engineering student and maybe more for a medical student. Of course, our students are paying £9,600. There is a real issue here about whether or not we maintain this as a business. If we threaten our universities, we risk serious damage. As it turns out, I am not particularly worried about Imperial College, but some other universities undoubtedly will have a massive problem.

I will finish because I have gone on for 10 minutes, which is longer than I intended. There is clear evidence that numbers are being reduced from some areas, particularly India, Nigeria, Japan and Turkey. We are talking a range of about 50% reductions from those countries. That is a real issue. Some 160 languages are spoken at Imperial College. The Royal College of Music is a much smaller place and 60 languages are spoken there. Those people have a huge and vital importance to Britain, not merely for its economy but for its future. We should be trying to encourage some of those scientists to stay in this country and support our economy in the future in all sorts of ways. At the moment, post-docs from my laboratory have left and gone—one to America recently and one to Asia. That is highly regrettable.

18:08

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I have long been of the opinion that immigration law is one of the best tests of the values and principles to which any country subscribes. It is also one of the best litmus tests by which to judge a country. I therefore wish to align myself with the comments made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee earlier on this afternoon when she spoke on the Bill.

The desperately sad thing is that we have been here before. In 2004, the Blair Government consulted on a similar proposal to exclude visitors from free primary healthcare. They did it as an excuse to try to deny failed asylum seekers access to NHS services, particularly secondary care. They never published the results of their consultation and quietly shelved the matter. Here we are again, all these years later, with another Government, under pressure from the right-wing press, coming up with the same set of proposals. It is a desperately sad reflection on the way we are asked to make legislation on this subject that we are yet again put in this position.

In July 2013, Jeremy Hunt admitted that he did not know whether health tourism was a problem at all. He said:

“The truth is that we do not know the cost”—

of unpaid NHS charges—

“which is why we are carrying out an independent audit this summer”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/7/13; col. 908.]

The Government produced two pieces of quantitative and qualitative research to go along with these Bills. The conclusion that can be drawn from them is that there is currently no systematic data collection whatever on NHS use by migrants, chargeable or otherwise.

The quantitative data were a top-down estimate of migrant use, modelled from data that were sometimes of varying quality and from a large number of assumptions. They used, for example, the international passenger survey data. They did not give us any actual new information about use of the NHS by migrants. In the quantitative research, researchers repeatedly put caveats around the findings of their model, saying that,

“any point is just a likely value in a plausible range”.

That is to say, the much publicised figure of £1.76 billion, which has been bandied around, is about 50% likely to be wrong. I really do not think that this is a proper basis on which to bring about such a fundamental change in access to the NHS.

The quantitative survey was subtitled, “Observations from the Front Line”. It gave the impression that front-line staff in acute health services had come up with systematic observations about migrants and their use of the NHS. In fact, what it revealed was that there was no systematic observation, and that quite often people were simply asked questions on the basis of their appearance or nationality. Such a flawed basis of research is really no way in which to change the fundamental right of access to the NHS for all of us.

By creating a barrier to accessing primary care services, we open up a huge health threat to the whole population. It is entirely possible that there will be serious implications in the diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases and in herd immunity for childhood diseases, for which we need immunisation of the whole population. There is a significant public health risk associated with restricting access to primary care, and it is not something that we should do lightly. There is not much evidence, I know, but there is one small study from Médecins du Monde—doctors of the world—which has a small clinic in Tower Hamlets that works with people who are vulnerable and do not have access to NHS services.

It is a very small study, but what MdM found was that its GP list of patients was pretty much like that of every other GP surgery. The majority of people who come to see the doctors do not require any treatment at all. A small, but significant, number of people require some minor medication and a follow-up visit. A fraction of patients require secondary care. Admittedly, this is only a small study, but rather than paying all our attention to some of the alarmist stories that we see in the press, we really ought to look at those small figures.

The biggest point that I want to make is that if we are to go ahead with anything in this Bill, we should do it solely on the basis that its implementation will be accompanied throughout by proper research and evidence-tracking, so that in future we will not be reduced to passing laws on the basis of what the Daily Mail might think is the truth.

In the time available to me, I shall pass on to one other issue. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for his thoughtful speech. On the issue of sham marriages and civil partnerships, I understand that the Government believe that there are between 4,000 and 10,000—we are back to shaky evidence bases again. They say that in 2012 there were approximately 1,900 cases of sham marriages and civil partnerships under Section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. How many of those were sham civil partnerships, as opposed to sham heterosexual marriages, and what were the countries of origin of the non-EEA partners?

I understand that the proposal to extend the notification for civil partnerships and marriages from 15 days to 28 is to enable registry officials to satisfy themselves that they are genuine. Under this Bill, the Home Office will also be allowed to extend that period to 70 days for further investigation, if there is reason to believe that the marriage or civil partnership is not genuine. However, it is not clear to me whether there is any appeal process which people will be able to use if they have been wrongly adjudged to have entered into a sham marriage or civil partnership. Will the Minister enlighten us on whether there is an appeals process, what it is and how people will be enabled to use it?

Finally, I turn to one other issue. Noble Lords who read yesterday’s Observer will have seen that LGBT asylum seekers have been subjected to the most shockingly degrading line of questioning during their interviews. Does the Minister agree that demeaning and intimidating people just because they are gay has no part whatever to play in our justice system? Will he assure us that this is going to stop—and stop now? We are not Uganda. We do not treat gay people like that in this country, no matter how hard our times are.

18:17

[Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a small landlord. Since the late 1960s, I have noticed successive Governments have used legislation for a more robust position on immigration, and it is always before the general election or even just before the European election. The debate should have been about the new EU arrivals from Romania and Bulgaria, but it is always the visible minority communities and people from outside the EU who will face the consequences.

I regret that I may be repeating some points so eloquently made earlier by your Lordships, but I will repeat them anyway. Parts 1 and 2 would remove due process protections and judicial scrutiny of immigration decision-making. Part 2 would also give immigration officials the power to demand biometric information from individuals. Officials currently believe they have the right to question during in-country spot checks. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is not in his seat, but I wonder how many of your Lordships have been stopped at an airport. The noble Viscount asked what was wrong with being asked to produce documents. I will tell your Lordships.

Last year I was stopped twice: once at Heathrow and a second time at Birmingham. At Birmingham in June I was asked to produce my documents, which I did, and I was then asked where I was going. I told them that I was going to Pakistan and why I was going there. I told him that I was going to attend the Prime Minister’s inauguration ceremony. Then he asked what I did, and I said, “I am a Member of the House of Lords”, and he asked, “In what country?”.

I made the point to the former Immigration Minister, Mark Harper, that that man needed some training. When I asked him whether he was targeting or profiling, he said that he was profiling. When I have asked Ministers and officials, they have said that there is no such thing as profiling. If that happened to any white, indigenous parliamentarian or member of the public, people would be appalled. That is my point. I can give you the dates: April and June 2013.

In November 2013, there was a raid in Rotherham at a restaurant, the Orient Express, the old train station. I just happened to be there when about eight or 10 officers walked in. Some of them stood near the door. The others went into the kitchen. They moved all the staff, who were very busy. They questioned everybody. I was watching, and then I asked one of the officers if I could speak to the senior officer present. He said, “Who are you?” and I told him that I was a just servant, a Member of the House of Lords, and I just wanted to ask what they were looking for. Actually, the raid resulted in nothing, because it was not based on intelligence but, having made that point, the officers, having come through the front door, went through the back of the restaurant and did not want to speak to me. That was recorded with the immigration officials in Yorkshire and Humberside.

Parts 3 and 4 would mark a huge shift in the British tradition of immigration control at the border, transferring responsibility to the daily lives of people across the country. Landlords, vicars, imams and healthcare workers will be asked to check on the immigration status of individuals who want to use their services, inevitably setting race relations back decades in the process. The point has already been made about the former Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, but even he could not detect the immigration papers. How can we expect landlords, vicars and health workers to behave like UK Border Agency officials?

In my opinion, the Bill is a sinister piece of legislation. Building on our laws that define certain humans as illegal, it is intended to create an even more hostile environment for an already marginalised section of society. Consequently, people will be deprived of employment, bank accounts, driving licences, accommodation and family life. Legal rights for seeking redress will be severely curtailed, and courts will be instructed by Parliament on how to decide cases. At the same time, social media channels are churning out material, propaganda wagons have been sent to patrol the streets bearing a slogan of hate, and “papers please” checks on public transport and the streets are spreading.

Families will not simply accept their extermination. Lovers will not part because a bureaucrat makes an error. Parents will not abandon their dreams for their children because some politician says so. Children will not exile their parents to a distant and lonely death because compassion and rights are no longer relevant to modern public policy.

Nor will society return to the chalky white days of the 1950s, before all these inconvenient cross-border, cross-racial family relationships. The Government’s hostile environment is not just about purging those modern, loving families from our society; it is also about wishfully thinking that such relationships can be discouraged in future. The setting of minimum income for a spouse at a level that literally half the population cannot meet warns our young and poor people that love with a foreigner comes at huge personal cost. It is intended to dissuade.

The Government’s social engineering is unnatural and morally wrong. It cannot possibly work, but it can cause misery along the way. The Bill removes appeal rights against decisions made under the Immigration Rules. For more than 40 years, we have had immigration tribunals to correct administrative decisions profoundly affecting people’s lives. It appears that tribunals will continue to exist for tax disputes, school place allocation, parking fines and welfare benefits, but not where one is faced with permanent separation from spouse or children or removal from the country.

The Bill proposes the removal of the right of appeal to an independent judge, to be replaced with “administrative review”, as many of your Lordships have already mentioned, by the department’s own staff. Immigration appeals have an almost 50% success rate, according to the Government’s own figures. A recent freedom of information request reveals that, between July 2012 and June 2013, 6,096 administrative reviews were resolved and, of those, 1,077 were overturned. That is 18%. That is why the Government want to remove the right of appeal. It is the same reason why the Government want to reduce access to judicial review: they do not like losing. The Government would rather reduce access to justice and remove independent scrutiny than improve decision-making.

The Government propose to empower the Home Secretary to deprive a person of British citizenship acquired by naturalisation, even if by doing so she will render the person stateless. The Home Secretary will be able to use that power if the person,

“has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK”.

Nearly 60 years ago, the Supreme Court of the United States decided in the Trop v Dulles case that it was a cruel and unusual punishment to deprive a person of citizenship, making him or her an outcast in his own land. Statelessness has been estimated to affect up to 12 million people worldwide. Possession of nationality is essential for full participation in society and a prerequisite for the enjoyment of the full range of human rights. Those who are stateless may, for example, be denied the right to own land or exercise the right to vote. They are often unable to obtain identity documents. They may be detained because they are stateless, and they can be denied access to education and health services or blocked from obtaining employment.

The evil of statelessness is a profound concern of the United Nations, which has produced two conventions on the issue: the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons 1954 and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961. The UK has signed both. Article 8 of the 1961 convention states:

“A Contracting State shall not deprive a person of his nationality if such deprivation would render him stateless”.

Although Article 8.3 allows the state to derogate from their obligation in respect of a person who,

“has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State”,

the UK has until now deliberately not relied on that derogation. Section 56 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, passed in the aftermath of the 7 July 2005 bombings, gave the Secretary of State the power to deprive a person of British citizenship on the grounds that that was conducive to the public good, but not if to do so would render the person stateless. I am puzzled by the use of the phrase,

“conducive to the public good”,

because it has been used arbitrarily and in a discriminatory manner.

Let me give you an example: a man called Moazzam Begg—a former Guantanamo Bay detainee—and a political leader from Pakistan both live in north London. In the case of Mr Begg, his passport has been confiscated due to his travel abroad, and I understand that he has been collecting information regarding the complicity of various authorities in the Syria dispute. He has never been charged with any criminal or terrorist activity anywhere, but he is now without a passport. In the case of the Pakistani politician, according to the BBC “Newsnight,” there are very serious allegations of murder, incitement to violence and money-laundering, which have been investigated by the Metropolitan Police. This man has no connection with British society. To the best of my knowledge he does not have a job or a business in the UK. Many people, however, have been killed in Karachi after his telephonic addresses, when he speaks from London. Thousands of people have made complaints to the Met police and written to the British authorities on his activities related to violence in Pakistan, yet the Home Secretary has not made any efforts to have him removed. There are thousands of people who question me on every trip to Pakistan on why the British authorities have this double standard—why they treat some people differently. It is “conducive to public good”.

The Government’s plan risks the UK’s losing a proud position—a position of solidarity and a potential position of leadership—instead of remaining at the forefront of international efforts to reduce statelessness. I have a very long list of things that I wanted to go into, and I realise that I have gone over my time, but I hope that the Bill will be changed, at least in Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6, including Clause 60. Amendments can make this Bill much better than it is now.

18:32

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, there have been many times in our history when we have had a hostile environment for immigration. Perhaps one of the more justified ones was when my own family came from Denmark, a European state—but of course it was not then, in the years 800 to 1000. It was more of a Norse confederation when we came in, and we certainly pillaged. I do not know what else we did, but we took the lands of Suffolk, where my predecessors were—a wonderful county, much enriched by us Norse and the Danes. It was right that there should have been a hostile reaction to those boats coming across the North Sea into—well, it was not the land of Angles then, but Saxon England.

What concerns me is this theme that has come through of hostile environments, created not so much by the Government, though I will come back to that later, but by the public. It is a real issue. I would come back to the theme of leadership that my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned, and how we deal with that.

To me, one of the biggest symbols of that hostile environment being set by us, the elite of political power, was the immigration vans. What they said was, “Go home or face arrest”, and then, like some sort of buy-one-get-one-free ad in a supermarket, “106 arrests last week in your area”. You look at that and you think, “Well, actually, that is factually correct: if you are illegal, then we wish you to go home. That is right”. But what an environment, and what a way to state your message. Of course, that did not just go over the TV screens in the United Kingdom or on our own “News at Ten” and other bulletins. It went worldwide. That is the problem about the UK brand that has been created by some of these actions.

What we have managed to do through this, certainly over the new year period, is fundamentally upset our allies in the European Union, the leaders of Bulgaria and Romania. Perhaps even more important, we have upset Donald Tusk, the leader in Poland, one of our potentially greatest allies in Europe in much of what we want to deliver. Most of Eastern Europe was alongside us in our agendas around Europe. Much of that friendship, that work we have done in the past to encourage them into the union has been thrown away by the sort of attitudes that we have shown at a governmental level within the United Kingdom. I highly regret that.

I say to noble Lords opposite that I was filled with great sadness last year, I think it was, when the Labour Party apologised for letting in our colleagues from the new member states of Eastern Europe on their accession to the European Union. There we had a smart, competitive advantage. The best and the brainiest and the most valuable of those citizens came across, first, not to other parts of continental Europe and the eurozone but to us and to Ireland—to our countryside and to our factories, certainly in the far south-west. It was a great boost to our economy. I am very sad that the Labour Party has admitted being wrong and said sorry for that. I think it was one of the great things that Britain did in fulfilling what it said in terms of enlargement of the European Union being important.

My noble friend Lord King mentioned that perhaps we need to think again about mobility in Europe. Perhaps we do, but it was Great Britain that pushed the agenda of enlargement, knowing exactly what the rules were. We were the country that pushed enlargement most, and now, because of that move back again, we are looking very strange within a European context.

This hostile environment shows a country, economy and population that are naturally successful and confident as being inward-looking and fearful. That is not helped by our continued bickering over the rest of European Union.

I was privileged to come into this House in 2006, during the previous Government. One of the things that struck me then was that every year we would have what I called “panicked Home Office syndrome”. There would be a Bill coming into Parliament every session to make the Government look tough on terrorism, or tough on crime. Most of them would be incredibly long Bills, and they took a long time to go through—but most of the powers were already there, and once the Bills were passed they were not implemented. They were not about effect but about headlines; they were about the Government making themselves look tough. I worry that this might start again in terms of the immigration debate because, as noble Lords have already said, in many ways this is not an issue that needs to be dealt with by legislation. I am sure that some aspects should be, but really it is about the competent management of the government that manage these areas—in this case, primarily the Home Office.

In the provisions of the Bill—and many noble Lords have said this already, so I will not delay the House—I am concerned that there is a risk of pushing illegal immigration, which is wrong and needs to be solved, further underground. It is a problem of discrimination, potentially, by landlords in this case—probably not so much by the clearing banks and with current accounts, but certainly by landlords. It is also about the authorities. We have had a couple of examples. I know Chinese restaurants in the south-west that have been raided several times. I cannot think of one instance in which any European or British restaurant or fish and chip shop in Cornwall or Devon has been raided, but ethnic restaurants are targeted by the authorities. This degrades our authority. It is the wrong way to approach this, but it is a temptation. I suspect it will continue.

There are some good things, though. Exit controls clearly make a lot of sense. I quite like being able to walk through an airport where I do not have to check out, but I agree that it is quite a good control. Even there, we often forget as Members of this House that we are members of a common travel area. The UK wilfully does not have control over its own borders: we share them with the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and, more importantly, the Republic of Ireland. I would be interested to hear from my noble friend the Minister whether the border checks and these various other aspects of border control are to be implemented by the authorities in the Republic of Ireland on the same scale and at the same time. I suspect that that is not completely the case.

On the NHS, I fundamentally believe that we should have a welcoming society which, on the whole, resists charging visitors for their medical conditions. If we have tourism with people coming for specific medical treatment, that is clearly wrong, but otherwise we should err on the side of generosity rather than trying to tighten up something that is probably not manageable.

Sham marriages are clearly an issue and need further attention as well, although a lot of those powers are already there. However, as my noble friend Lord Avebury asked, where is the legislation that also says that British citizens should have the unimpeded right to marry who they wish? I do not see that in the Bill. It would seem to be a fundamental right—something that we would want to offer all our fellow citizens—yet we cannot have it at the moment.

The main problem I see is one of fear. Yes, it is a fear of immigration but also of everything behind it. There are two main strands to the solution for that. One is the boring one of management: managing the process better and properly, not through legislation. The other strand, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, is that of leadership, in that we have to make it clear that the exchange of immigration and emigration—all the circular movement of people—is generally positive. It needs to be managed and not to be a drain on the UK economy. I am certain that it is quite the opposite of that. We need to put out that message, rather than being completely defensive about it.

I congratulate the Government, as other noble Lords have done, on our foreign aid budget, which makes sure that the problem of excessive migration will go down over the long term. I am also delighted to see that we are not following the example of Australia by using the Royal Navy to push North Sea ferries back into the territorial waters of our European colleagues. Neither are we committing asylum seekers to the island of Sark, which would be the equivalent of some of the Australian operations.

I will finish on this point. We have just had a report from the Government on flooding in the south-west. I come from Cornwall, where one of our big concerns has been to try to get the message out that Cornwall and Devon are still accessible. You can still come and visit us to enjoy our attractions. You can come and locate your business there and you will not be isolated. We have put out the hashtag #openforbusiness for the south-west. If we are not careful and continue with this hostile environment for migration, we will have to start to persuade people by saying strongly that we are open for business in the United Kingdom as well.

18:43

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Teverson. His combative style shows that his pillaging instincts, at least in a verbal sense, have not been forgotten, and I will come back to some of his comments in a moment.

The majority of the speeches we have had and the briefings we have received on the Bill have focused on two aspects: first, the risk that the Bill poses to the economic advantages that this country is said to enjoy as a result of immigration and, secondly, that the proposed tightening-up of the country’s immigration procedures represents an undue restriction on what my noble friend on the Front Bench called in his opening remarks “access to justice”. Those are serious charges, to which I wish to return in a few minutes.

At the outset, however, I may disappoint the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Winston, because I want in this Second Reading debate to declare my support for what the Government are proposing today. For those of us engaged in the political process, there are few policies which our fellow citizens regard as being as counterintuitive, if not downright illogical, than those surrounding immigration rules and procedures. The regulars in the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck find it hard to understand how people who have come here illegally, and who may have committed crimes or enjoyed access to our non-contributory health and social services, seem to be able to avoid removal for an inordinate length of time. I am not suggesting that the only way to access political wisdom is via the saloon bar of the Dog and Duck but the regulars have a point. If we are not to be seen as being out of touch we need to address those concerns to maintain public confidence, as my noble friend also said his opening remarks. The Bill at least addresses some of those concerns and that is why I support it. I quite agree that there are issues and details that we shall need to explore and discuss in Committee but the Government are broadly on the right track.

I referred a moment ago to the question of access to justice. I attach great importance to that. Members of your Lordships’ House may be aware that I am a trustee of Fair Trials International and that I was extremely critical of the Government’s proposals to reduce the time in which an appeal can be made against a European arrest warrant from 14 days to seven days. That proposal formed part of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill which your Lordships’ House has just finished considering. My noble friend on the Front Bench felt the full force of my disappointment, which continues as he was not prepared to shift the Government’s position. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, may be smiling but it was also pretty disappointing that noble Lords opposite would not support that either. When I hear them talking about how important it is to get these procedures right, the question worth bearing in mind is whether you are going to talk the talk or walk the walk. But—and this is an important but—I had to recognise that in the case of European arrest warrants, at least, there was a substantial proportion of unmeritorious appeals, which clogged up the system at considerable expense. I expect and fear that the immigration appeal process has similar characteristics and is therefore in need of streamlining. Therefore, while access to justice is very important, it is not a card that trumps all others. There are balancing issues of fairness to other law-abiding members of society and of the appropriate use of scarce resources in our health and social services. Finally, there are balancing issues of the interests of the long-suffering British taxpayer who foots the bill. No doubt we shall examine these balances in detail in Committee.

In the rest of my remarks, I want to set these proposals in the wider issue of the economic advantage that many claim the country enjoys from immigration. Here, I want to follow some of the themes that my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater was developing in his interesting remarks earlier. I do so in the context of immigration as a whole. I recognise that the Bill seeks to address only immigration from outside the EU but, in this Second Reading debate, we should step back and look at the jigsaw as a whole—not just the piece that the Bill represents. I argue strongly that to consider immigration only as regards economic activity is to adopt too narrow a prism. We need to consider also the impacts of immigration on other issues, such as quality of life and social cohesion.

I should make it clear at the beginning—my noble friend Lady Hamwee made this point—that, lest my remarks should be misinterpreted, when I talk about the native population I am talking about the native population irrespective of race, colour or creed. The basic facts may be simply stated. The population of this country is going up by 1,100 people a day—a large village or a small town every week. Our population, which is currently 63 million, is estimated to reach 70 million by 2025. That is an increase of 7 million, or 14 cities the size of Manchester. “No worries”, say many people, “Only 5% of Britain is built upon”. It is probably about 12% of England but it is a small proportion, they say. However, the population is not evenly spread. England has now overtaken the Netherlands as the most densely populated country in Europe. Furthermore, the UK is expected to have the largest European population by about 2030, having by then overtaken Germany. Let us think about the position of the south of England when a goodly proportion of those 14 Manchesters come to be built, as I expect that they will be, south of a line from Bristol to the Wash. To suggest that there are no consequent quality-of-life issues is fanciful. The heated public debates that we are having about building on the green belt, expanding Heathrow Airport and the construction of HS2 are the first outriders of what will be increasingly challenging public policy issues.

There is also the issue of social cohesion, referred to by my noble friend in his opening remarks and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester in his interesting contribution. If the default option is to encourage immigration, we run the risk of crowding out our native born. Crowding out can take many forms. If we consider football’s Premier League, an undeniably successful British activity that earns this country millions, we should also consider how few British players play in the Premier League. Does it matter that 200 or 300 young British males are unable to realise their dreams? In the grand scheme of things, it probably does not, although it matters rather more if you are one of the 200 or 300. It matters particularly to the black minority community, who proportionately provide a large number of those who play football at the highest level.

Universities UK may be briefing us, and undoubtedly has briefed us, about the impact of these proposals, but I hope it has read the report on higher education, published in October 2012, that drew attention to the increasing shortage of home-grown postgraduate students as a result of the increasing number of people coming from overseas to pursue postgraduate education here. Below those two quite small, perhaps rather atypical, examples are thousands of our fellow countrymen who may find their aspirations and ambitions if not shattered at least limited. We risk creating or perhaps reinforcing a sullen, discontented underclass—and especially where that underclass is a minority group, we risk creating an atmosphere in which extremism may flourish.

On Thursday 6 February, in the Moses Room, the noble Lord, Lord McFall of Alcluith, who is not in his place, initiated a debate on social mobility. The speeches focused, unsurprisingly, on what can be done to hasten the “up” escalator. But the darker side of social mobility, about which we prefer not to talk, is the “down” escalator. This one carries people who for a wide variety of reasons have found themselves disadvantaged. While the “down” escalator can apply to individuals, it can apply to countries too. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, talked about the impact of the “down” escalator in that we are perhaps attracting to this country skilled people who can help to stabilise less advantaged, underdeveloped failing states. Although we may benefit from that in the short run, in the long run we may be creating a yet more dangerous world.

Finally, there is the argument that we need immigration to look after our ageing population. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and I have discussed this issue in the past. If we follow such a course we will be, in the famous words of Sir David Attenborough, engaging in a gigantic Ponzi population scheme. For today’s young people become tomorrow’s old people. I should like to share some figures with the House. In 2003 the dependency ratio of workers to pensioners was 3.7 to 1—3.7 workers to each pensioner. We know that in 2050 there will be 17.1 million pensioners. If we maintain the ratio we will need 63.4 million workers. Yet on the same projection we know that we will have only 36 million. That is a gap of 27 million. That means that we would need a population not of 70 million, but of 100 million, which is 50% above our present level. These 100 million would in due course become pensioners, requiring still more people to look after them. These are not the remarks of a little Englander determined to pull up the drawbridge.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, does the noble Lord’s arithmetic take into account the fact that the pension age will be increasing during this period?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right. We could certainly change the ratio by increasing the pension age, but it would not remove the problem. It might obviate it: it might not be 27 million; it might be 20 million. But I accept that a change in the pension age will make a difference.

No one with any knowledge of the history of our country can be unaware of the vital contribution that new arrivals have made to its life: its vitality, diversity and dynamism. However, given the UK’s, and particularly England’s, geographical constraints, which do not exist in the same way for the United States, a country that is often used as an example for us to follow as regards immigration, we are approaching a point at which we must begin a balanced, calm debate about the interaction of size of population with economic advantage, quality of life and social cohesion. The Bill before us today is a first small step in the process to ensure that in principle those who come here legally make a reasonable contribution to our society while those who are here illegally are speedily removed. That is why the Bill has my support.

18:55

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, if ever courageous, strategic leadership was required, it is on the extremely contentious and all-consuming issue of immigration. We need leadership that is determined to stand by values and principle, and has a sense of vision for the future of our society. We certainly do not want ambivalence or—worse—deliberately or in effect playing to myopic or xenophobic prejudice, or to lack of understanding, or to the sensationalism of the sinister, populist elements of the media. We must realise that we will never appease or contain such dangerous irrationality. We will be swallowed by it unless we stand up to it.

There are of course huge issues within the context of a consensus that an open-door policy is not a practicality. Migration is a global issue. The noble Lord, Lord King, spoke powerfully about this. There is a desperate need for internationally and regionally agreed strategies—not least within the European Union—within which individual nations can work out their own detailed policies and apply them. We also need a sense of perspective. When we get so preoccupied by the pressures of immigration in this country, do we remember the people of Jordan, Turkey or Lebanon? The immediacy of the issues facing them dwarfs any concerns that we have in this country.

The pressures are political, economic and climatic. They are also the consequences of an accelerating trend towards globalisation of the market, with freer movement of goods and finances, but not people. That is a gigantic flaw in a market. In a genuine market people go to where the work is. Unless we can agree international and regional strategies to meet the reality of the contradiction, so-called illegal immigration will be with us for ever in one form or another.

We also need to be honest with ourselves about immigration’s impact on our economy. It is really not acceptable that we should be proceeding with immigration policy on the basis of generalised hunches about its effect. There are clearly authentically different interpretations of whether immigration is a good thing for our economy. This needs to be thought out very clearly, and I suggest that it should be a prior requisite before one starts having new policies on migration.

Then there are the pressures on local communities, where the largest burden of immigration falls. What are we doing to ensure that where there is the largest influx of migration, the public services get special attention and support? What are we doing to ensure that valiant work on integration is receiving the kind of level of support that is essential for it to be as successful as it should be?

On security, an issue that has constantly concerned me, we need friends in the world, not embittered and alienated people who can become prey to extremist recruiters. That is why the fairness and justice of our immigration policy and its implementation must be transparent. That is why those implementing it must at all times do so with sensitivity and humanity—of course because these are central to a decent Britain but also because it is unforgivable, in our closely interwoven and fragile world, to be building up resentment. If we do this, when it all goes wrong we cannot put all the responsibility and blame on those on the front line; again, we need strong and consistent leadership that sets the tone.

On the issue of asylum, let us strip all the detail away. What is the underlying drive in our asylum policy? Is it, when everything is said and done, to deny asylum and keep people out? Or is it a commitment to the principle that asylum is something crucially important in the name of humanity for people who have been persecuted and are subject to oppression? Surely the ideal for Britain would be that we should bust a gut to ensure that if a person has a case for asylum, it is upheld and sustained, not that everything is mobilised by the state to try to prove that there is no case. Some of the recent stories about what goes on in what amounts to the interrogation of asylum seekers makes me almost at times ashamed to call myself British.

With regard to the issue of employment, what nonsense it is, when people are waiting for a decision, to deny them the dignity of supporting themselves and contributing to the British economy. Many of them could contribute very powerfully to the economy. Then there is the issue of the well-being of children. Yes, we are signed up to many of the conventions and international charters on the rights of the child—indeed, we were pioneers—but surely, just as Britons, we want to live in a society where the well-being of the child is paramount in all situations, and not just another difficult element to be managed. How do we help the child who is caught up in the dreadful complexities of a situation?

On the issue of universities and higher education, others have spoken powerfully and I know that other noble Lords will speak in this debate. I am involved—marginally, these days—in the governance of three universities. Of course we need to win friends in the world by their experiences here in higher education, and of course there is a contribution to the financial well-being of our universities by students from overseas, but the issue that always preoccupies me is this: how, in our highly interdependent world, can we have a relevant centre of higher education and excellence that is not international in character? The very international community that makes a university enhances the quality of the education that is going on there, and indeed enhances its relevance. I wish that we could talk more about this.

Then there is the issue of family. We like to preach about the importance of families and to argue that they are fundamental to the stability of society, yet we can condone immigration policies that in effect break and wreck families. They are almost designed to do so, and are sometimes operated with a callousness that is unbelievable. If we really believe in families, our immigration policy should reflect that.

Then there is a vast array of legal issues, as well presented by the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. They will all need careful scrutiny as the Bill goes forward: removal; enforcement; bail; biometrics; appeals, especially the practicability of appeals from abroad; access to services, including private rented accommodation; not least the possible stimulation of racism; bank accounts; penalties on employers; the deprivation of citizenship; and, underlying everything, the upholding of human rights. There is a lot of work to be done on this Bill.

As the Bill is given detailed scrutiny, there will be a need for constant awareness of the implications for real people and the real situations out there, away from Whitehall and Westminster. It is therefore essential to listen to those in many of the valiant front-line NGOs that grapple every day with those realities. How we operate immigration policy has tremendous implications for successful race relations within the UK itself. I believe that creation is about diversity. I also believe that we need to celebrate diversity in our society and recognise, overall, the hugely positive impact on the UK of immigration across the centuries.

As some colleagues will know, I recently spent time in hospital and am now undertaking quite intensive physiotherapy. My God, I have seen internationalism at work in our health service—I have experienced it in hospital, and now, where I am undertaking my physio, one of my physiotherapists is Asian. Her grandfather was Indian, from Tanzania, and her husband, a doctor, is also from that part of the world. I could not have a more first-class physiotherapist than she, except that my physiotherapist at home is also outstanding—and that makes another point about recognising potential in society, as he is blind.

I want us to have an immigration policy that genuinely reflects the realities of the international pressures and challenges that we are up against—we cannot be escapist—but is something of which we are proud: part of a profile of a decent United Kingdom, moving forward in strengthening the reality of international co-operation.

19:08

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, a great deal has already been said that I was planning to say, and all I plan to do now is add a few details. At the very start of the debate, many hours ago, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester said that there had been concern about immigration before and that this was nothing new. I do not entirely agree. At the moment there is a very ugly mood of xenophobia in Britain, much stronger than anything that existed before. The Daily Mail, the Daily Express, UKIP and even some Conservative Back-Benchers have created a picture of immigration that poisons the discussion of a very serious subject. It is a picture of a huge wave of immigrants who come to Britain to take our jobs, thus increasing unemployment and depressing wages, to abuse our National Health Service and to take advantage of our social services—in a word, to scrounge on our welfare state. It is now suggested that millions of Bulgarians and Romanians are coming to invade us. It is a mood that says, “We want our country back” and “Keep out the foreigners”. It is a very dangerous mood because it is coupled with a total rejection and mistrust of all politics: illustrated by Russell Brand and, “We shouldn’t vote”, “They’re all the same” and “They’re all in it for themselves”. It is a very dangerous mood indeed.

It could worsen because at the moment it is foreigners who are the objective. This mood is behind the strong rise in support for UKIP. At the moment, it is foreigners who they single out, but there could be others soon. It could in time be different races or ethnic minorities. It could be Jews. It has happened before in the history of other countries.

As my noble friend Lady Hamwee and many other noble Lords pointed out, there is a need for leadership. The European Commission has complained that there are Ministers who seldom provide that leadership. A lot of the speeches and rhetoric about immigration are based on myth. This is certainly part of the perception abroad. The Government lead the way, but there are some voices in government who seem to pour fuel on the flames. One of the examples given by my noble friend Lord Teverson and others was the appalling, terrible bus advertisement. That was fortunately withdrawn. It suggested that there is a far greater problem with illegal immigrants than there is—we do not know exactly how big it is—and the whole tenor was thoroughly nasty and anti-immigrant.

Recently, the Prime Minister shelved the report on migrants commissioned by the Home Secretary. It was supposed to be an answer to the Commission’s complaints about the way that the topic is being dealt with in this country. The Commission has said that there is concern in many countries, but nowhere is the debate so full of distortion. It seems that the report was completed by the Home Office at the request of the Home Secretary, but it has been shelved. Why? What on earth is the reason? Is it perhaps because its answers did not stand up? If it is suppressed, it will add to the suspicion that there is more than just a whiff of xenophobia in the Home Office itself. There have been too many cases of officials in the border agency being condemned because of their treatment of people due for deportation and their insensitive and unjustified refusals of applications by asylum seekers. My noble friend Lady Barker referred to the kind of questions asked of gay asylum seekers from Uganda fleeing from the persecution there. There is a very nasty whiff of xenophobia as well as anti-gay prejudice.

As many noble Lords have said, this Bill should ease worries about immigration, but instead it may well increase the chance of injustice being suffered by immigrants. It will need very careful scrutiny and serious amendment. One of my sadnesses, which is shared with my noble friend Lord Teverson, is about Labour attitudes. In the other place, during the passage of the Bill, it seemed that the Labour Party was interested only in making restrictions on immigrants tighter. It was not so much concerned about the libertarian issues at stake.

The other subject that has come up, which has been very eloquently explored, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, is the question of students. I am rather mystified about the position of students because I now understand that there are separate statistics about students and non-students but that we cannot exclude students from the official immigration figures because of some international objection. What about the Americans, the Australians or the New Zealanders? What happens in their case? Why have they been able to say that they exclude students from the immigration statistics? It makes a huge difference, not only because the way we have approached the question of students has led to the extraordinary situation that the numbers are marginally declining. It is an appalling situation and most unexpected.

Everybody has now said how important students are to this country. It is not only the billions—lots of different figures in billions have been given—that they bring to the Exchequer but that they add enormously to the attraction of our universities by their presence. When they return home, as most of them do, which is why they are swelling the immigration figures, they are ambassadors for the services this country has to offer, and if they stay they are enormously important not only to the health service but to industry which needs the skills which are in short supply. My first question is: what about these immigration figures? Why is it that we cannot follow the example of America, Australia and New Zealand? It seems an obvious example to follow. Secondly, is there going to be some way, as some noble Lords have suggested, in which we can exclude students from this Bill because that would be a wonderful achievement?

Finally, I want to say something about appeals. It has been said that the reforms will clog up the immigration tribunals because of all the cases of judicial review. Clause 4 substitutes for 17 previous grounds of appeal against decisions such as refusal of leave to enter or to remain or decisions to deport only three grounds: refusal of a protection claim or a human rights claim or a decision to revoke a person’s protection status. An immigration expert I know tells me that the effect of these changes will be that many will now rely on human rights grounds of appeal, which will make for many more complicated cases and will swamp the work of tribunals, so two factors may swamp them: the increase in judicial reviews and human rights cases. If grounds of appeal are constricted and so many of the appeals succeed, officials will have even less incentive to be circumspect because they will know that their judgment is absolute and final and cannot be challenged.

It is clear from the many points made in this debate that this Bill needs the kind of scrutiny which it did not get in the other place. It needs serious scrutiny and serious reform, and I hope there will be success in substantially amending this Bill.

19:18

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, this Second Reading of the Immigration Bill is not taking place in a climate of public debate which is particularly propitious to the calm and balanced consideration of an extremely sensitive issue. Quite the contrary, there are screaming headlines in the tabloid press, paparazzi turning up at Luton Airport to interview any Romanian or Bulgarian on whom they can lay their hands and the two main parties being tempted into a race to the bottom with UKIP which they cannot hope, and should not want, to win. These are now the drivers of a debate which risks doing this country lasting economic harm and overwhelming our traditional values of tolerance and openness.

Amendments to the Bill were moved in the other place which would, if they had been adopted, have been contrary to our treaty-based international obligations. Fortunately, they were not so adopted, but senior Ministers did not oppose them. I am sure that this House’s consideration of the Bill will not go off down that dangerous road, and I pay tribute to the Minister who started the debate today on a note, which I thought was thoroughly admirable, of calm and cautious reflection. I just wish the substance of what he was introducing was a bit closer in conformity to the tone he used in introducing it.

I hope that in this debate, as we have already heard, people will be prepared to look more objectively and dispassionately at the arguments for, as well as those against, this country remaining reasonably, but not irresponsibly, open to immigration. There is a crying need for more research and an evidence-based approach to this issue, and for it to be looked at in a wider context than just that of our own national prism. About 18 months ago your Lordships’ EU Select Committee published a report on the EU’s general approach to migration and mobility, which highlighted not only the real threat from a rising tide of illegal immigration but also the need—if Europe is to compete effectively in the world of tomorrow—to continue to attract and admit skills from outside to supplement those of our ageing populations.

However, the main thrust of my intervention in this debate is not those broader issues, but rather the negative impact that some of the measures in this Bill could have on our higher education sector and on students coming to this country for full-time undergraduate or postgraduate education. In doing so, I declare an interest as a member of the council of the University of Kent. I begin, however, by giving credit to this Government for having taken action against the abuse of our immigration controls by dodgy language schools. That action was necessary and justified, even if the revelations of tonight’s “Panorama” programme show that there is still some way to go.

Other aspects of the Government’s immigration policy have not, however, been so benign. There is now a real threat from that policy, to what is by any calculation one of our largest and potentially most buoyant export industries: the provision of undergraduate and postgraduate education at our universities. I am sorry to repeat the figures, but I feel, particularly since I did not manage to recognise at all the one figure provided by the Minister when he opened the debate, that they are really alarming. The Higher Education Statistics Authority, whose figures for the academic year 2012-13 came out just last month, showed an overall drop of 0.9%—not huge I agree, but the first drop since the authority began setting figures in 1994—and a drop of 1% in students who were actually starting their education courses in the present year. The drop in postgraduates was 4.5%, and that is extremely important because it is a very profitable part of the universities’ offer. Figures for students coming here from India, as my noble friend Lord Bilimoria pointed out, have dropped by 49% in the last two years; from Pakistan by 21%; and from other non-EU countries by smaller, but still significant, figures.

This is all taking place at a time when our main international competitors are expanding their position in what is a rapidly growing market. The US figures for the same period are up 7.2%; the figures for Australia are up 6.9%. Those figures, surely, should be a wake-up call to the Government about their policies. Let us not forget that the negative aspects of this Bill have yet to come into play at all. This is what has happened on the basis of existing policies, and now we are piling Pelion upon Ossa. A number of the measures in this Bill are likely to make that trend worse, not better. They include the removal of the appeal rights for students and staff applying for further leave to remain; the introduction of a surcharge for access to NHS services; the requirement on private landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants; and the scope for the Government to further raise fees for visa and immigration services. That is quite a list of disincentives for anyone who is sitting there weighing up the relative merits of this country against others as a possible place to go for their higher education.

All this is completely unnecessary, if only the Government would heed the pleas of no less than four Select Committees of both Houses to stop treating full-time undergraduates and postgraduate students as economic migrants for public policy purposes. This is not a statistical problem. It is not a matter of a statistical quibble. The Minister addressed that aspect in earlier debates that we have had, but that is not the heart of the matter. The Government can, if they really wish, or feel obligated to do so, continue to include students in their submission of statistics to the United Nations or whoever it is they believe they are obligated to produce those statistics for, but they do not need—and that is a matter totally in our own hands—to treat these students as economic migrants for public policy purposes.

It is not even as if bona fide undergraduate and postgraduate students are the focus of the rather febrile public debate that is going on over immigration; they are not. If most people were asked whether such students, who contribute substantial sums to our economy and are actually creating jobs in higher education for our own citizens, are economic migrants, they would rightly be completely baffled. So why has the Government not simply stopped treating them as such?

There are serious questions to be answered here, and I hope that when the Minister comes to reply to the debate, and in Committee and on Report, we can hope for a more considered response from the Government than they have hitherto provided. Why cannot such students simply be excluded from the scope of this Bill? We are talking about a sector of the economy which is responsible for massive invisible exports—£10.2 billion in the year 2011-12, and more by now—and which is currently second in the world league table of a market that is growing rapidly. We do not have that many industries like that, frankly, and certainly not so many that we can lightly afford to further damage their prospects by what I accept are inadvertently and unintendedly conceived government policies.

19:27

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to take part in the debate this evening, and to hear the wide range of opinions, but one thing surprises me—neither of our UKIP members is here or taking part in this debate. Usually when we debate in this House we debate matters that affect us in this country. Yet this Bill looks beyond our borders, to those in different circumstances, with different needs and from different cultures; those used to different ways of life that may seem strange to us. These are people who, because they are different, may seem difficult to understand and respond to. Because of this difference, people are suspicious of them and questions arise. This can lead to hostility, because traditional ways of life seem to be threatened and disappearing.

We live in a changing world, a different world. The Welsh word for looking to the past and longing for it is “hiraeth”, and there is a hiraeth here for what used to be. I could go on for hours about Wales as it used to be, some 50 or 60 years ago. But it is not like that any longer. Things have changed, and in spite of the memories, we have to face this changing situation in which we find ourselves. I could remember—well, I do not really—the Liberal Wales of 1906. That would have been a tremendous time to live in Wales. But that is yesterday, and yesterday changes and we are here in a new century.

Suspicion and hostility are natural things, but they can be replaced by trust and acceptance. This owes a great deal to the media. If they foster hostility and poison, it does a great disservice to us in so many ways. Our future is to have people who understand and accept each other, which means that our national curriculum should have that sort of emphasis—that we accept, learn and share experiences, and schools are places where hostility ends and where children of different nationalities and backgrounds blend together. We should say how much we appreciate the work that goes on in so many of these schools in overcoming what would be a hostility. But the newspapers that are read at home create that hostility. We cannot legislate for that, of course, but we must try to influence it so that, when people read about it, they know whether they are reading a balanced account of what is happening.

Does this Bill help or hinder? It is a question which we hope, as the Bill passes through this House, we might be able to answer by saying that this is a Bill about hospitality and not hostility. Much of the Bill deals with and affects those seeking asylum in the UK. I am proud to be president of the Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary. There are many questions that I would like to raise, and which will be raised as the Bill proceeds through the House. Let us look, first, at the question of work. I have a Private Member’s Bill which has had its First Reading—whether it will go any further I do not know—and which tries to reduce the time from 12 months to six months that asylum seekers have to wait before they can try for a job in the United Kingdom. In an ideal world, there would be no need to worry about adding such an amendment about reducing the time from 12 months to six months; no asylum seeker would be waiting for a decision for such a long time.

Successive Governments have utterly failed to come close to what I would suggest is the ideal. We force asylum seekers to be dependent on the state; many of them try to exist on £36.62 per week, because of decisions, through no fault of their own, that keep them out of work for all this time. If we had this reduction, we could reduce the burden on the taxpayer, as asylum seekers who are able to work will no longer need to be supported. They may instead contribute to the economy through taxes and consumer spending. I know that my coalition partners always stress how wonderful it is to have hard-working families; in every broadcast and every speech they talk about hard-working families. Yet they are denying people who would be hard-working families from undertaking any job whatever.

Eleven other European Union countries already permit asylum seekers to work after six months or less: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. They all permit this to happen—so why do not we also? The EU reception conditions directive has reduced the period when asylum seekers can be excluded from the labour market to nine months. But we have not signed up to this directive. We are putting ourselves so out of step with other nations. Let us not forget that 5,500 asylum seekers have been waiting for more than six months for a decision on their asylum claim. I suggest that we have a lot of catching up to do, to catch up with other European nations, as we go through Committee.

Secondly, I want to mention the children’s aspect to this Bill. I supported the coalition at the beginning because we promised to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. At its peak, there were over 2,000 children a year in immigration detention, often in the most heart-breaking of circumstances. This has been reduced; in December, it was down to 24 children between the ages of five to 17. I hope—and the suggestion has already been made—that this detention will now be enshrined in statute and that no longer will any child be detained for immigration purposes.

I also suggest that this House must review the Bill’s current definition of who counts as an asylum-seeking child. A number of clauses seek to limit the definition to those who are British-born or who have been here for seven years or more. Worryingly, this excludes most asylum-seeking children, many of whom come here as teenagers. There were 1,125 applications from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in 2012 and 835 applications in the first three quarters of 2013. Troublingly, the vast majority of these would be excluded from the definitions in the Bill. So I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that they, too, will be included. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 1989 make the best interests of the child a primary consideration in any decision that concerns children. The Home Office has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. That must remain the case—and, again, I ask the Minister to confirm that point.

Another problem that is arising now is the fact that free legal advice and representation is no longer available for immigration purposes; that has been the case since 1 April 2013. Only cases in which an individual has an asylum or protection claim are covered, while non-asylum claims have been cut. I suggest that lack of legal assistance undermines a person’s ability to put forward the necessary evidence and legal arguments and have their cases fairly determined. For example, to make an application under Article 8, it is necessary to gather extensive evidence demonstrating the extent to which a child has developed a personal life and connections within the UK. Expert evidence from psychologists is often required, as might be evidence from a child’s carer, teacher, therapist or medical professional. It is vital not only to understand and obtain evidence but also the child must be able to present it appropriately. This requires guidance from legal professionals to ensure that all relevant matters informing a best interests assessment are addressed. In the face of such difficulty, there is anecdotal evidence that some young people who came to the UK as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are, thanks to cuts in legal aid, being forced to try and represent themselves. Is that the best that we can do for these children?

Up until their 18th birthday, asylum-seeking children are protected in this nation but it is a sad state of affairs that then, on their 18th birthday, everything can change. They are here for most of their formative years, developing their personality, friends, and language as well as culture, and then suddenly they are deported. Suddenly, they are not welcome—suddenly, they do not count. I can hardly imagine. We speak of the withdrawal of citizenship—is there anything worse than this withdrawal, at the age of 18, of the status of children and young people? I hear tales of terror and desperation—how one lad pushed a wardrobe against the door of his bedroom in case a dawn raid descended on him. These are stories that make you weep, because they are not in our tradition of being humane and respectable in every way towards those who are most vulnerable in our communities. I am very proud of so much that has been in the past. We can deny and reject that or we can continue our historic contribution to ensuring that every individual who seeks to visit, study, settle or claim sanctuary here is treated with respect and compassion.

I shall end my speech with something that I have said before. An asylum seeker, failed or successful, is a human being—just like every one of us in this Chamber.

19:39

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, my name was mistakenly left off the speakers list, although I had put it down last week. I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, has withdrawn from the debate and the government Chief Whip has permitted me to step into her slot. I hope that your Lordships will consent to that.

I have been glad to see that we have looked at this issue in the round and recognised that the impact of poor immigration reform has a very real impact on the future of our country. Like others, I wish to emphasise the incredible impact that it has if we lose whole generations of students who choose to go to other nations where they are not facing the kind of hurdles and hostilities that seem to them to be presented if they apply to come to a British university. The consequence is that we lose important relationships—friends who take on leading roles in their countries, not just in politics but in professions, education and all manner of roles. We lose all this social and diplomatic capital as well as any financial benefit. It is short-sighted of government not to recognise that.

However, I wanted to concentrate our minds a little on a conflation that takes place. We all speak proudly of our tradition on asylum and say that we provide a safe haven for those who have been persecuted; yet, at the same time, we often confuse their position with that of economic migrants who may have come on a visa to visit, overstay and become illegal. Their position should be considered differently, because most of my work in the immigration field has been with people who have sought asylum, sometimes for different reasons, and their asylum application has failed—not always because they have not been persecuted but simply because providing proof has become difficult.

It is important that this House knows that this country detains more people under immigration powers than any other country in Europe, apart from Greece. While Greece detains more, it does so for much shorter periods and at the point when people arrive at the border. We are unique in that we detain indefinitely. We do not have a cap on detention, as other countries do. That experience of indefinite detention causes profound mental anguish to the individuals concerned. We use detention in ways that cause enormous distress. People who have often already endured horrors beyond our imagining end up in custody. My experience is particularly with women who have claimed asylum and then been detained. Their suffering is a disgraceful indictment of our system. Lots of detained people show signs of mental health problems during detention. We cannot remove them because their homeland is unsafe, they have no travel papers or there is some other reason. Many of the women have experienced sexual violation and degradation of the most terrible kind, even if, because of a lack of corroboration, they have been unable to cross the barrier of the culture of disbelief that exists within the UK Border Agency.

The organisation Detention Action has reported on long-term detainees and found that ultimately only a third were moved or deported because, in the end, they manage to persuade the authorities that they should be allowed to stay. However, that happens often after years, or certainly many months, in detention. I am afraid that the United Kingdom is one of the few countries in Europe that has no time limit on detention. One thing that is a source of surprise to me is that Sweden manages to negotiate the voluntary departure of 82% of refused asylum seekers. Why is that possible there but not here? We exacerbate the situation of vulnerable people if we remove bail, as is intended in the Bill.

I strongly urge the Minister and Members of this House to read a report called Detained, produced by Women for Refugee Women, an organisation that I know well. Read it and your hearts will break. So many of these women have experienced terrible persecution, yet the process they face in this country is neither fair nor just. We take a pride in ourselves as being protectors of liberty and believers in the rule of law. Unfortunately, we do not see that happening in many of these cases. The stories in that report are hair-raising. I feel strongly that any woman who is claiming that she has experienced rape, sexual violence or other forms of torture of a sexual nature should not be in detention. Where these issues are raised in a claim, the woman should be released to continue her claim in the community. There are groups which will provide the kind of support that they need. Certainly, no men should be employed in roles in places such as Yarl’s Wood where they come into contact with women who have experienced this kind of abuse. Just think how hard it is for traumatised women who have experienced multiple rape, often at the hands of men in uniforms, to then be surrounded by men in uniforms.

It should go without saying that pregnant women should not be detained. If a woman must be detained prior to removal, it should be for the shortest possible time after alternatives to detention have been meaningfully considered and explored. I urge on this House that we should be arguing in the debates on this Bill, and in Committee, for the introduction of a 28-day cap on any detention, after which people would have to be released into the community to continue their claim. The whole system is a bit of a farce. Proper legal advice has to be available to people who are seeking to make asylum applications, and I am fearful of the implications if that is not available.

We pretend that we have a fast-track system. That is not just an abuse of the human beings involved; it is an abuse of the English language—fast it is not. All we hear are claims about abuses of the system and the high numbers of appeals. Others have said, and I repeat, that the reason for the high number of appeals has been that the quality of decision-making at first instance is disgracefully poor. The high success level on appeal is not because we have a simpering judiciary who are all soft touches; it is actually because they consider these appeals and find in favour of the asylum seekers because they find that their cases have real and genuine merit.

Those who hyperventilate about criminals being allowed to resist deportation because of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights fail to realise that the numbers who succeed on that ground are very few indeed. It is perfectly reasonable to deport serious offenders who come from other parts of the world, but it is also important to consider how long a man or woman has lived in this country because we are sometimes talking about people who came to live here as children and then talking about deporting them to places that they do not even know and where they do not speak the language. We are also talking about people who have formed relationships; sometimes whole families would be torn apart by deportation orders or forced into upheaval if they are to go to the place to which the father of a family is being deported. Wives and children have to accept what is really deportation of them, too, when they have done no wrong. Children also have rights, and we must bear that in mind when we are considering these issues. This whole business of saying that we should almost automatically deport people flies in the face of the things that we should be proud of here in Britain—proper due process, individual consideration of cases and judicial discretion being applied.

Finally, I want to deal with the disgraceful decision to remove citizenship from those who have received British nationality. I know that the story is that only those who are a threat to national security will be endangered, so the rest of us can sleep easy, and that those who have acquired citizenship can sleep easy, because only people who have become British citizens will be affected. I ask those noble Lords who have become British citizens to think hard about what this means. We are told that it will rarely mean being rendered stateless. I want us to think about statelessness. This was a real issue after World War 2: the notion that someone could wander the earth without nationality and lose the protections that come with national identity. Why does it matter? It is because if we are abroad and some desperate situation befalls us we can call upon the help of our embassies. We can insist on our rights being protected. Without such assistance, who knows what could happen to us?

I will tell you what can happen. I have been acting for someone who had his citizenship removed 18 months ago while he was in Somalia, where his grandmother lives. His parents received this information in the post then, in a phone call, they were told to inform their son that he had 28 days to appeal. Making phone calls to Somalia is not very easy. The claim was that he was now a threat to national security: when asked how they knew this, no help was forthcoming. So we have to conjecture that the Government has somehow become privy to shared intelligence. This is unlikely to have been done by the Somalians; more likely by American intelligence. There is no embassy functioning in Somalia because it is in such chaos, so he was advised by his family, having received advice from the border agent who phoned them, to head for somewhere where he might be able to access consular support to lodge an appeal. He crossed the border into Djibouti and, blow me, was picked up by the secret police there. Could it be that locational intelligence came from the telephone contact with his parents? He was then thrown into jail, interrogated up hill and down dale. When asked his nationality, he said he was British. The guards returned to inform him that they were sorry but he was not being claimed by the British. He was no longer British: we had washed our hands of him. Having been interrogated by the Djibouti police, he was handed over to the United States security services present there. He was interrogated further, put on plane, a hood put over his head and flown to the United States of America. There was no extradition procedure; no due process in any court; no disclosure of the reasons for any of this; nothing. That is what happens when you are rendered stateless.

In this new world, where is law? Where is the rule of law of which we are so proud? No American citizen can have their citizenship removed, ever. We have no publicly available evidence as to what my client is supposed to have planned or done. Some countries do not allow dual nationality and Somalia was one of them. Since this happened to my client, that has now been changed. However, just think about it: he is a British citizen who has lived here since he was a tiny child. My client was rendered stateless when his citizenship was removed and Britain made it possible for a whole set of lawlessness and serious abuses of human rights to follow. It does not matter to me, at the moment, whether he is a threat to national security. What should concern this House is the removal of legal protections and safeguards, which is what statelessness means.

I am ashamed that we have sunk to this and will certainly be opposing aspects of the Bill. I hope the Minister will listen carefully, because we do have certain proud traditions in this country; we do offer asylum to people in need of protection; we do believe that people should be brought before courts if they have done things that are wrong. We do not believe in putting hoods on people’s heads, seizing them and transporting them to other places without any kind of court process. That is not what Britain stands for. That is not what we should allow. That is what statelessness means.

19:59

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, it is not a good economic or political climate for immigration. With so much conflict in the Middle East and north Africa and more people on the move, this year will see increasing pre-election prejudice against immigrants, some of it in the House of Commons and some in the European Parliament. We have passed through such waves of xenophobia before. The media are full of stories about Greece’s leaking borders, record numbers of babies born to Bulgarians, Italy’s indomitable boat people and the Swiss—the Swiss—resisting migrants even from EU member states. In this atmosphere, the Immigration Bill cannot be dismissed as merely pandering to the UKIP wing of the Conservative Party, although it does that too. It is responding to a genuine public concern that, for all sorts of reasons, we are allowing in too many people.

It has been said that immigration debates are usually based on inadequate information, but a few years ago this House apparently offered a beacon of light. The Lords Economic Affairs Committee was recently described as a,

“bright spot in our political darkness”.

It takes a lot of careful reading to work out its real point of view. Its 2008 report on immigration challenged even my long-held belief that economic migration has been a benefit to this country. I had to think again whether it was right for the Government to put a cap on immigration numbers.

What concerns me today is that, in our laborious but legitimate efforts to reduce illegal migration, we are handing out harsh treatment to other people: genuine migrants, asylum seekers and students. In his unique contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, reminded us of the bigger picture. Asylum seekers should be seen in a category of their own since, in general, they seem to be genuinely fleeing from persecution and claim our sympathy provided they do not breach the rules. I trust that the Minister is not part of the coalition that sees human rights legislation, here or in Europe, purely as a vehicle of illegal claims for asylum.

UK Governments, of all persuasions, have come down on asylum seekers with successive and excessive legislation on matters such as detention and removal—as we have just heard—judicial review, legal aid, bail and access to healthcare. The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Roberts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, have drawn attention to the length of time people now spend in detention centres without proper redress. This Bill is no exception to the trend. Let us take healthcare: Clauses 33 and 34 require certain immigrants to pay a so-called immigration health charge. As the JCHR says, this is not confined to illegal migrants but catches people who are lawfully in the UK. Clause 34 enables the Government to charge anyone without indefinite leave to remain for healthcare, even in emergencies and in most areas of primary health, although GP consultations will remain free.

The problem is that charging has been shown to discourage the more vulnerable patients, a point made powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Médecins du Monde found that 73% of such patients in east London were not registered with a GP, over half of them had a poor understanding of the rules and 40% were unable to gather the necessary documents. Another study of 112 asylum seekers in Brixton found that 54% of such patients entitled to free healthcare had been turned away from mainstream GP surgeries. Health professionals have also written to express their concerns about the implementation of these proposals, whether they are feasible and how the cost of administration is going to be met.

The situation of children, especially those whose parents face deportation, has been mentioned several times by the right reverend Prelate and others. The Home Office recognises that this is a problem, but the Bill makes their plight even worse. Nearly one-third of appeals against deportation succeeded in 2012-13 and yet, under Clause 12—against the advice of the JCHR—people may be prevented from challenging their deportation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, much more needs to be done to improve initial decisions. We have said this for so many years. If people have children in the UK and they are forced to appeal from abroad without any access to the usual advice, this is bound to be damaging to the family. Judicial review is also going to be limited to those who do not pass the residence test. How can the Minister explain his claim that the Bill can protect such children?

Clause 14 seems to be an attack on Article 8 and Article 3 of the ECHR. This is a typical situation where a law, discredited by a few criminals, comes down on innocent families, especially on children with no control over their own situation. I fully accept that it is often a fine judgment, because it implies balancing the best interests of the child against the public interest concerning the parent. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, many children become victims of social exclusion when they are so treated. How does this clause tally with the Chikwamba case? That was an important decision by the House of Lords which means that a test of reasonableness now has to be applied before illegal immigrants are forced to return to their country and family situations must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Recently, we debated cuts in legal aid again, and this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, just now. These cuts are hitting detained asylum seekers as well as vulnerable young people. They will inevitably mean more unrepresented appellants. Meanwhile, I understand that the role of the non-legal members of the Immigration and Asylum Tribunal, in both the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal, may be under threat from further cuts. These are experts who sit with immigration judges and they are essential to the process of hearing appeals against decisions to refuse entry or to deport. With the increasing volume of cases, it seems quite wrong to reduce the numbers dealing with them at this time. There are only 32 of them. There has already been public consultation on this decision. Now, I can only hope that the Minister will look favourably on the tribunals, even though he may not be able to make reference to them today.

Finally, turning to the subject of students, the Minister will remember my concern that the bona fide colleges were suffering considerably from the Government’s policies, rather more than the universities. Bogus students have been rightly targeted, but I am referring to the effect of previous legislation, as well as this Bill, on genuine students in our colleges and universities. All of us who want students taken out of immigration numbers—and I know that the Minister will make the OECD point again—have watched this country lose revenue today, but we will see the loss of revenue and our international standing tomorrow. At the same time, colleges and other institutions are being turned into agents of the Home Office, and now landlords are going to join them.

The Minister mentioned ensuring competitiveness, but he will have heard my noble friends Lord Bilimoria and Lord Hannay speak about the competition in Australia, Canada and elsewhere. Like my noble friend Lord Bilimoria, I am especially worried about the loss of Indian students. I wonder whether the Minister saw the Indian High Commissioner’s interview in The House magazine last week. He said that restricting students’ opportunities to work during and after their studies was especially counterproductive. I wonder whether the Home Office has talked to the high commission about this.

Students who study practical subjects such as catering or design technology—and there are many from the subcontinent who do—are now branded as illegal workers, although they have a very limited chance of getting work experience, which is essential to their courses and careers. They need to see how things are done in the high street. In view of the strength of feeling in this House, is it not high time that the Government confronted this issue once and for all?

I am a patron of the Haslar Visitors Group in Portsmouth and I have just received an invitation to its next AGM, which has the theme “How do we avoid becoming the nasty country?”. I sincerely hope that the Government, in their search for solutions, will remember that this country has had a deservedly good reputation for hospitality to strangers over many centuries, and we do not want to tarnish it.

20:03

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate. The Bill has many valuable features but there are also, as has been exemplified in this debate, some very valid and genuine concerns. As has been said, the debate was ably and fairly set out by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach.

It is important to put the Bill in its context. This country has become more vibrant, more diverse, stronger and better because of immigration. That was exemplified recently by the 2012 Olympics. Looking at the Olympic ambassadors, our troops, our spectators and certainly our competitors, you could see that they were from many different races, religions, traditions and backgrounds.

I agree with the points made by many noble Lords about the importance of asylum. Over the years under different Governments we have been a haven for refugees and asylum seekers, from Uganda and recently from Syria, and we have also looked at special cases—for example, the Gurkhas. It is also important to say that this Bill is not the full picture. Quite rightly, it looks at how we control immigration but there are other important aspects. Just last Friday we dealt with a Bill—admittedly it is a Private Member’s Bill but it has had unanimous support from all quarters in the Commons and the Lords—making it easier for some troops to qualify successfully as immigrants in this country. That is the other important facet or the other side of the coin. I also look forward to the modern slavery Bill, when we will see provisions for tackling some of the abuses in relation to people who seek to settle in this country. That is another important part of the picture.

I look at this Bill in two senses: we have to ask whether it is potentially fair and potentially effective. Some parts of the Bill fulfil both criteria. On removal or deportation, if we can aim for a quicker, more streamlined but fair system—noble Lords have made the point about the need for speed—that will be good. Similarly, it will be good if we have a streamlined, fair and effective system for appeals. Also, provided that there is provision for the destruction of some of the materials in appropriate circumstances, the provisions on biometric information will bring our system into the 21st century. Other countries have biometric testing and I see no objection per se in that provided that it is properly controlled and fair. Tougher provisions on sham marriages and civil partnerships would, again, be welcomed. If they are sham and inappropriate marriages or civil partnerships, we need to act. I also welcome tougher powers against illegal or unfit immigration advisory bodies and organisations. These provisions are to be greeted with acclaim.

I have some concerns about the health service charge in relation to students—a point that has cropped up repeatedly. However, again, I think that a health service charge properly administered and at an appropriate low level is fair and reasonable. It is practised by other European countries. Of course, it is paid up-front; it is not paid when somebody goes to the doctor—it is certainly not paid to the doctor because they are exempt. I do not think that it is paid at the hospital door; I think that it is a provision that is made when somebody makes an application. Therefore, once paid, it should not act as a deterrent from going to a hospital. Certainly, we will need to look at that to make sure that it is fair. I have concerns in relation to international students, both in that area and more widely.

Something that has not been discussed at great length but, again, is important so that we can assess the effect of immigration and whether people are returning home is proper exit controls. That provision was widely welcomed in the Commons across all parties. It is something that we need to do, it is relatively easily done and it should not hold things up. Most people leave by plane, so we will get a full and proper picture if that check can be done at exit—something that has not been effectively done until now.

That brings me to two areas of the Bill which cause me concern and which I think will need proper scrutiny as it goes through Committee. The first relates to the services section of the legislation, if I can call it that, in relation to driving licences, bank accounts and particularly accommodation. There are some problems here regarding fairness and effectiveness. It may be unfair both on the person doing the checking and on the person being checked, and it may also be unfair to people who are not being checked and who are going to be hit as collateral damage. The DVLA and the banks have the capacity—they are large enough—to be able to create a small bureaucracy to deal with this, although I ask my noble friend to say in response, if he can, what documents are going to be looked at. I have concerns about this. If we do not have ID cards in this country—and this is not a plea to have them; there are great concerns about them—how can people demonstrate that they are nationals of the UK or that they have a right to be here? As has been said, many people do not have a passport so, short of that, what documents are going to be needed? I can see the argument that we do not want to encourage people who are here illegally to be able to set up a bank account or obtain a driving licence.

I have greater concerns in relation to landlords and landladies. Some of these will be people who have got a small house where they are letting out rooms. It is extremely unfair to put them in a position where they have to police the immigration service and check what these documents are. Will the Minister say how this is going to be dealt with? Short of ID cards—which I do not want—I cannot see how you can have an effective system in those circumstances.

The danger is—and this point has been made by other noble Lords—that there could be indirect and unintentional discrimination. The tenancy example is perhaps the most serious one. People will go for tenants who they think have a right to be here. Alternatively, some of the most vulnerable in our society who do not have passports but who are nationals will suffer collaterally as well. This area causes me concern. There is potential for indirect discrimination and I should like to probe further as to how this is going to work.

However, my greatest concern is something that has been touched on by other Members of your Lordships’ House. It relates to the deprivation of nationality, particularly where the person has no other nationality. If they have dual nationality then clearly it is not so serious, but if the deprivation of nationality leaves them stateless, then I have serious concerns both about fairness and efficacy. It seems neither fair not effective. If they are in this country there is nowhere we can legally deport them to if they are stateless. Britain has a proud history of fairness and I believe my country to be better than this proposal.

There is much to welcome in this Bill, but there is much to scrutinise as well. I look forward to doing so as the legislation proceeds. I trust we shall be able to improve this Bill.

20:12

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the immigration debate was recently described as “rancid”, as politics has descended into what the article described as,

“the stinking gutter of xenophobia”.

The author was Ian Birrell, a former speechwriter to David Cameron. The stinking gutter of xenophobia diminishes us all, and that is the context in which this Bill has to be understood, as a number of noble Lords have already eloquently underlined. When publishing the Bill, the Home Secretary said that it was designed to

“create a really hostile environment for illegal migrants”.

The fear of organisations working in the field is that it will indeed create a hostile environment, but for migrants and minority ethnic groups more generally. The UN High Commissioners for Refugees has warned that it will lead to further stigmatisation of, and discrimination against, refugees and asylum seekers.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has likewise cautioned that a disqualification from renting or occupying private sector accommodation on grounds of immigration status will heighten the risk of wider, even if unintentional, racial discrimination in lettings. Moreover, it could give rise to homelessness in the case of people who have no right to remain in the UK but who face genuine barriers to leaving. This potentially risks breaches of the right not to be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I am not reassured by the Government’s response to the committee and I am even less reassured having received the Residential Landlords Association briefing, which argues that the proposal is unworkable and will have unintended, negative consequences. This is reinforced by having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Best, who is such an expert in the area of housing. While I welcome the fact that there will be some form of piloting before national rollout, can the Minister explain how that will work and say what steps will be taken to monitor the impact from an equalities and human rights perspective?

Among other concerns raised in the JCHR’s legislative scrutiny report are the significant limitation of appeal rights, which we believe,

“is not compatible with the common law right of access to a court or tribunal in relation to unlawful immigration decisions, and the right to an effective remedy”.

This is particularly so in the light of the relatively high success rate for such appeals,

“due to the well-documented shortcomings in the quality of decision-making … the importance of appeals as a means of enforcing the children duty in s. 55 of the Borders, Citzenship and Immigration Act 2009; … and … the likely cumulative impact of proposed changes to legal aid and judicial review”.

I hope that the Minister was not implying that the Joint Committee has been peddling myths when he included that in his little list of myths in his speech. In the context of what is happening to judicial review, the Committee was also not satisfied with,

“the Government’s reliance on the continued availability of judicial review to challenge the Secretary of State’s certification that a human rights appeal can be heard out of country”.

Secondly, we expressed our unease about Clause 14, which is,

“a statutory provision which purports to tell courts and tribunals that ‘little weight’ should be given to a particular consideration”,

in any “judicial balancing exercise”, as is proposed with regard to Article 8 claims concerning the right to respect for private and family life. This appeared to us to be,

“a significant legislative trespass into the judicial function”.

Thirdly, we raised the possible implications of the Bill for the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act. We welcomed the Government’s clarification that nothing in the Bill changes that duty but warned that it is not clear in practice how the Bill is to be read alongside it. I also welcome the clarification in the Government’s response to our report that the Section 55 duty will apply to children who do not come within the Bill’s definition of a qualifying child.

Nevertheless, I share the concern raised by the Refugee Children’s Consortium and BID that Clause 14 does not explicitly include the best interests of children in the list of public interest considerations to which courts and tribunals should have regard, even though it is accepted by the Government that courts and tribunals must treat the best interests of children as a primary consideration in line with Article 3 of the UNCRC. The consortium has warned that,

“the Bill will have significant detrimental consequences for children”.

That point was raised very eloquently by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.

Fears have also been expressed about some of the Bill’s health provisions and the associated proposals for NHS charging outlined in the Department of Health consultation. While welcoming the retention of free access to GP and nurse appointments, the Refugee Children’s Consortium warns that any treatment needed as a result could now become chargeable. It believes that this,

“will serve to discourage refugee and migrant children and families from accessing healthcare services”,

with a very likely,

“detrimental impact on children's health, well-being and safety as well as on public health”.

Other organisations point to likely damaging consequences for HIV testing.

Doctors of the World raised particular concerns about children not receiving vital immunisations and the risk for their futures if their mothers do not receive any or timely antenatal care. The Royal College of Midwives and Maternity Action also express their fear that these proposed changes will deter some pregnant women from seeking and accessing maternity care. They point out that the negative impact on the health of these women and their babies could perversely lead to a need for more medical care at a greater cost.

I also want to express my concern about Clause 60. I very much welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said about that. As ILPA warns, the removal of the,

“‘right to have rights’ … is a retrograde step indeed”.

I add that it is the more so because it would be retrospective. Liberty condemns it as an archaic punishment rendering the individual completely voiceless and vulnerable to human rights violations. I therefore agree with Sarah Teather MP that,

“making people stateless is simply wrong”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/14; col. 1079.]—

regardless of how many people are involved. We have heard from my noble friend Lady Kennedy what that can mean in practice.

I hope that in Committee we might be able to consider some of the issues raised by the JCHR’s inquiry into unaccompanied migrant children and young people and the Children’s Society’s parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, of which I was a member. Among the latter’s recommendations were reform of the asylum support system and permission to work for asylum seekers who do not receive a decision on their application within six months, a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Judd in his marvellous speech and by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. The inquiry expressed its shock at evidence it received of children left destitute and homeless, entirely without institutional support. The fear is that this Bill could lead to even more widespread destitution and homelessness among these children and others, as well as infringe important human rights.

The more unpopular the group, the greater the responsibility on your Lordships’ House to look dispassionately yet sympathetically at their needs and their rights. Many outside organisations which campaign tirelessly on behalf of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are now looking to us to speak up on their behalf and to amend the more damaging provisions in this Bill. I hope that we will not let them down.

20:21

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, it has been a pleasure to listen to this very important debate in your Lordships’ House. We have heard some wonderful speeches and I feel privileged to take part. Successive Governments have sought to grapple with immigration legislation, increasingly in a hostile environment. We all rightly want a fair and just system to protect those who are genuine migrants or asylum seekers and to treat them in a humane way in accordance with the proud traditions which our society has established for many years: namely, traditions of tolerance, integrity and fairness.

Unfortunately, in the race to be seen to talk tough on immigration, the whole debate and language has become toxic and xenophobic. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is not in his place, reminded us that we live in a world in which we have responsibilities that we cannot duck. He talked about what is happening in the Middle East, in dysfunctional countries such as Syria, and about how poorer countries are rising to the challenge. He mentioned Turkey, a country to which I have ethnic links, which is currently looking after about 560,000 Syrians. It does not call them refugees; it calls them guests and it treats them as guests. It does not stigmatise them. Many thousands are being looked after in the homes of Turkish people in a very different way from here. We have our duty but we must remember that other countries are doing far more than us. Some of the language suggests that somehow everyone is coming to this country and we had better pull up that drawbridge or we are going to be swamped.

Those of us from immigrant families who arrived in the UK in the 1950s and 1960s, will remember the language and the discrimination endured by our parents and family. Many of those migrants came on the invitation of the Government of the time to rebuild and contribute to the UK’s post-war services, infrastructure and economy. Waves of migrants have continued to make an enormous contribution to this country. Instead of the debate on immigration being framed around establishing a fair and just immigration system and ensuring that the system is not abused, we see the debate being framed in a quite different way. Unfortunately in recent years it has been more about chasing negative and extreme headlines, as other noble Lords have said.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the shameful language used about Bulgarians and Romanians in the run-up to 1 January. Last week I asked an Oral Question in your Lordships’ House on the impact that that is having on the communities here. There is strong evidence that it is impacting on the children from those communities. They are living here, their parents are here and they are in our schools. They are being discriminated against. As ChildLine reported, there has been a 69% increase in children from those communities facing racism in schools. How must it feel to be a child these days from a Bulgarian or Romanian background? They have been talked about as if they are somehow inferior and not worthy of coming to this country, and not making a valuable contribution. I have an interest because my mother is 82 and her last two care workers were Bulgarian, as is the current one. They are fantastic people—hard-working, committed and cannot do enough. I am a bit biased when it comes to that sort of language.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Hamwee and other noble Lords. I wrote this at the weekend and many of us are thinking very similarly when we say that the debate must be about showing leadership. Those of us in Parliament and in positions of power and influence must be more responsible in the language that we use. There has to be responsible leadership. We need to lead and not follow. It is not a race to the bottom.

We know that all political parties look at the polls very closely and nowadays immigration is being talked about. If you ask people what their top concern is—surprise, surprise, it is immigration. In years gone by I remember it was the NHS, education, crime or community safety; now, apparently, the majority of people in this country are worried about immigration. When you ask them how it personally affects them, the figures are rather different. That is the test we need to apply when people are afraid of immigration. The impact is not as great as is being dictated by sections of the media.

I have real concerns about the negative impact and effects on some of the checks mentioned earlier by noble Lords, and I want to highlight housing, which was set out eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I have been told that many landlords who will be asked to do the job of immigration officials may well bypass taking part in the bureaucratic checks—they might be too expensive or time-consuming, or the landlords may not want to risk fines. If someone looks or sounds like a person from an ethnic minority or a migrant of dubious background we could well end up with a situation of ethnic profiling that our long-standing equalities legislation was designed to end. This would be extremely damaging to race relations and community cohesion. We could have a situation where we go back to the days I mentioned earlier. When my parents came to this country they were confronted by signs saying, “No Blacks, no dogs, no Irish, no foreigners”—that sort of thing. It was legal then. We could start rolling back hard-fought-for equalities legislation if we go down that road and I am very worried about that.

I am also concerned about the inappropriate detention of vulnerable asylum seekers, particularly women—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, set out very clearly. Many of these women have been raped or trafficked or indeed are pregnant. Recent reports show alarming abuse by male guards. In 2012, 6,071 women sought refuge as asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. Almost 2,000 of them were held in detention centres and the bulk of these vulnerable women—some 85%—said they had either been raped or tortured. Many had severe mental health problems.

According to the UK Border Agency, its policy where there is evidence of this type of abuse is that an individual should be detained only in exceptional circumstances—but in far too many cases detention is indefinite and is taking place and is unacceptable. Some 40% of women are being held for more than a month—and for some people it is up to a year—in degrading conditions. Does the Minister expect that the Bill will go some way to addressing that? How will the Bill tackle human trafficking victims? How will it tackle the exploitation of migrant workers by gangs, which we hear is taking place far too frequently?

I welcome proposals to tackle the bogus so-called immigration advice centres. Some of these are pop-up advice centres, and I have certainly seen them in my part of London over the years. They prey on vulnerable asylum seekers, charging large sums of money for often unhelpful advice that prejudices their cases. Regulation of those bodies is important, and I welcome that.

All too often, the rhetoric around immigration becomes inflated with negative language about criminals, bogus asylum seekers, health tourists, scroungers and so forth, but little is made of the enormous contributions made to the United Kingdom by migration over the decades. There have been contributions to the health service, as has been mentioned already, the economy and social and cultural aspects—the very fabric of the society that we now enjoy. Not all are or need to be the brightest and the best, but although we welcome them, we should also look at our social care sector, which I touched on earlier. We have an ageing population and the vast majority of care workers working in challenging jobs in care homes and in homes are migrant workers. They are working for the minimum wage doing thankless jobs in conditions that many people from the host community do not want to do. That has been the situation over many decades. Migrants come over here and do the jobs that other people do not want to do.

We should value the work that they are doing in the NHS and the care sector. They work in their thousands as care workers and cleaners in the NHS, and without their labour the social care services would undoubtedly collapse. Fairness, which befits our country—a country of great tolerance and a role model around the world—is vital. The Bill, as others have said, needs proper scrutiny and I hope that it will get it.

My real worry is that while we all want a fair and proportionate enforcement of immigration control, and it is important to have confidence in the system, a policy of forced destitution through the combined effect of homelessness and perhaps lack of healthcare, as we have already heard, as a tool of immigration control for those who may already be highly vulnerable and facing exploitation, has obvious and grave ethical implications for our society, and I hope that we will be vigilant before we go down that route.

20:32

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I understand the Government’s wish to reduce net immigration. But they surely need to increase the number of overseas students, particularly outside London, where the pressures are less. The background to the Bill, however, is that after five years of problems, the UK borders authority was abolished in March 2013, the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Advisory Service have both closed and the number of reputable law firms willing to take on immigration and asylum cases has been sharply reduced. Legal aid has been savagely cut and may be cut still further, and fees for documentation are steadily rising while waivers and refunds are hard to obtain. Meanwhile, the director-general of the UK visa and immigration section told the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place that she did not think the organisation was ever going to be fixed.

That situation makes it ever more important that decisions in asylum cases and other immigration matters are got right in the first place. That will save endless trouble later with appeals, judicial reviews and so forth. Will the Government devote their energy to this? Will they ensure that high-quality interpreters are available when needed? Will they see that women are interviewed by women, unless this is against the wishes of the person? Will they always have accurate, up-to-date country information? I and many other noble Lords have been asking these kinds of questions for years without, I am sorry to say, much result.

I now come to children’s issues and follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. The Refugee Children’s Consortium, a grouping of more than 40 NGOs which work daily with such children and their parents, estimates that there are 120,000 undocumented children in Britain—and the figure could easily be higher. That is, they have no agreed status and may be subject to deportation. The total is perhaps not surprising, given the backlog of over 30,000 asylum cases, some long outstanding. In addition, there are the children of overstayers and the steady trickle of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

I regret that this Bill will increase the risk of destitution and homelessness for such children and their families. Children and young people will be more at risk of exploitation and abuse. Fears of deportation and new restrictions on access to the National Health Service are likely to spread infectious diseases and increase maternal and infant deaths—as was clearly pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to Doctors of the World, whose practitioners have had a clinic in Bethnal Green for years. They have reported that many migrants are destitute, not registered with surgeries, fearful of arrest and that the children are not getting the immunisations they deserve. Will the Government consult consortium members, for example the Catholic Social Action Network, the Cardinal Hume Centre, the Salvation Army and the Baobab Centre in north London? Will they ensure that the Department of Health and all its local outposts in the health service know of the undertaking given by the former Minister, Mr Harper, on 12 November at col. 310 of Commons Hansard? It concerns both public health and access to treatment.

The Government must surely know their duties under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly Article 2. They must not discriminate against children on grounds of race, nationality or parents’ status. This means that all children are equal in the sight of the law and their best interests must prevail. This is upheld by case law: for example, the judgment in ZH (Tanzania). Will the Minister say how the Secretary of State’s duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 will be carried out once this Bill becomes law? She has to safeguard and promote the welfare of children with respect to immigration functions.

I ask also what is being done about appointing guardians for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. This has been debated for a long time. Will legal aid be preserved for unaccompanied children and minors where trafficking is alleged or suspected? I ask the Government to pay particular attention to the recent report from Bail for Immigration Detainees, Fractured Childhoods. It recommends that,

“families should not be separated by immigration detention”,

and that where it is absolutely necessary, detention should be time-limited—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, asked—and that it should be subject to judicial oversight.

In particular, Immigration Rules 398 and 399 should be revised to reflect legal requirements to consider the child’s best interests. There are many other NGOs longing to make their expertise available. They include Detention Action, the Residential Landlords’ Association, the Royal College of Midwives and Still Human, Still Here, a campaign for destitute refused asylum applicants.

I congratulate the Government on proposing that the Bill be considered by a Committee of the whole House. That will at least allow some issues to be dealt with by votes early on. We know that airline staff and employers have for some years been pressed into service as unofficial immigration officials. I deeply regret that landlords, banks, carriers and port staff, registrars and GPs will all have extra burdens imposed on them. Here, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. We shall have also to discuss the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 8, on the right to privacy and family life.

For those reasons, and for the well-being of innocent children, the Bill should be amended before it leaves this House. I beg Her Majesty’s Government not to let their mind be poisoned by the rantings of some tabloid newspapers. I have given notice of various questions and look forward to helpful answers. I conclude by agreeing most strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, when he said that what we need is a policy that will provide fairness and humanity, especially for children and families, in our immigration system.

20:41

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, I speak in this important debate to focus on some of the issues concerning children and universities. I declare an interest as the vice-president of Barnardo’s and as the chancellor of the University of Exeter, where we continue to encourage high-quality applications for science and engineering programmes from a diversity of countries, in line with supporting the UK’s economic growth in that strategically important area. Support is needed, and the UK needs to send out positive messages in this global competitive market. Therefore, I wish not just to express the concerns of Exeter University but to echo concerns shared by many universities throughout the country, on whom the proposals will have the most detrimental effect in terms of international student intakes and regional economic developments.

The international student sector will be one of the groups most affected by the Bill, as it makes up 75% of those who are already subject to visa controls and are most heavily regulated and monitored. However, this group makes the most significant contribution to the UK economy. Making the process harder for them would deter many potential students from choosing the UK as a place to study. I worry that by implementing these proposals, UK education is likely to go backwards on its long established tradition of international cultural integration, competitiveness and co-operation.

In Exeter, as in many other UK cities, international students and staff make a significant contribution to the local economy. As a university and as a city, we wish to encourage international students to come to Exeter. Our major concern is that a number of clauses in the Bill—for example, those on the introduction of NHS charges, the requirements for landlords to check immigration permission before letting their properties, and the removal of appeal rights for in-country visa applicants—give the message that the UK is a difficult place to which to come to study.

Exeter’s international teaching staff, who are vital to developing the international reputation of the university, already contribute tax and national insurance from their salaries. Under these new proposals, they will now also have to pay an up-front levy to use NHS services. Many come to the UK with their families, which will make this a significant cost and may discourage them from working here. This would be our loss. I ask my noble friend the Minister: has this been taken into consideration?

Our university invests a lot of resources into ensuring that all international students have valid immigration permission. We perform this role effectively and diligently. I ask my noble friend whether he believes that landlords, with no training, will be able to do the same. There is a risk that many landlords will cease to let their properties to international students, placing these students at a disadvantage against their UK counterparts and increasing feelings of marginalisation.

The Government must make sure that the Immigration Rules deter fraudsters, criminals and those who wish our nation harm, but the Government must also show that we welcome genuine candidates. It is vital that this positive message be sent out across the world.

I now turn to children and young people. Many of the proposed policies will indirectly affect children, such as those in detention centres and those without refugee status. I hope that any legislation the Government are considering involving immigration detention for children will make sure that the well-being of children is a priority and will include safeguards to ensure that pre-departure accommodation, such as Cedars, where support is given by Barnardo’s, is used as a last resort and for the shortest possible time, in line with international standards of human rights. Children deserve this.

I also draw attention to the concerns of charities such as Kids Company, which deals with many serious problems involving children and young people who are impacted by their parents’ unresolved immigration issues. Some of these children were trafficked, and at 18 their lives come to a complete standstill. They do not have the legal papers to get employment or be able to access further education or take up university places offered to them to help them better their lives and make a positive contribution to Britain. Kids Company has said:

“We have to support a number of young people by paying for their food and accommodation because they are not eligible for housing benefit or subsistence, and because they cannot access benefits or get employment due to their unresolved status”.

Many of the young people are being sexually abused by men who allow them to stay in their homes in return for sexual contact. They are very traumatised, undernourished, humiliated and excluded.

Another significant problem is the abuse by a few unscrupulous solicitors who, knowing these young people are vulnerable, take their money and do not process their legal papers appropriately. These victims cannot hold the solicitors accountable because they do not have the know-how, and they are not legally defined here in the UK. Consequently, Kids Company has to pay the fee required by the Home Office to legitimise these unfortunate young people’s legal status as refugees.

The Government’s strategy is flawed in this area and needs to be addressed, as the numbers who find themselves in this position are growing. Many of these non-status individuals resort to crime and prostitution to survive, not to mention the psychological damage that they suffer. Kids Company has stated that this group now forms its biggest and most high-risk client group. They are arriving at its doorsteps daily through word of mouth. It describes the scale and severity of this problem as catastrophic; a problem that requires an international refugee protection programme, which I hope that the Government will consider.

These are just some of my main concerns on this important Bill. Many noble Lords have expressed some of the views which I, too, feel. I also look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I truly hope that he takes a holistic view, with a clear head and moral conscience, and with our great country’s interest and reputation close to heart.

20:51

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, the economic and human rights issues raised by this important Bill have been effectively examined by noble Lords today. However, I and others well understand the Government’s need to find ways to reduce the impact of illegal migrants upon our hard-pressed health services and upon the British taxpayer. I also welcome the Government’s adjustments to the Bill following representations made over recent months. Particularly welcome are the exemptions for asylum seekers, refugees and victims of human trafficking.

Other noble Lords have spoken eloquently about the importance of perception and the need to avoid sending a message to the world that Britain is closed for business. I also want to refer to the powerful arguments against the creation of stateless persons; I simply endorse those contributions. I will touch only briefly on the provisions for private landlords and the NHS charging issue raised in Part 3. My aim is to raise a number of questions in the hope that the Minister can clarify the points raised before Committee, so that we might cut down some amendments that would be unnecessary in the debate at that point.

We need to understand the relationship between the existing system within the NHS to charge non-EU visitors to the UK for certain services and the combination of the proposed surcharge, payable before entry to Britain, with the plan to continue charging non-EU migrants for expensive health interventions. It seems that the Department of Health has been unable to assess fully the extent of the problem which these new provisions are designed to rectify. I recognise that a surcharge paid before entry to Britain is greatly preferable to charging people at the time of health treatment. If the surcharge were limited to short-term visitors and were the only charge, I would be inclined to support it. However, we know that the surcharge will apply much more widely than current provisions for visitors, and that migrants will continue to be charged as well for expensive treatments.

It is important to know what the threshold is for those charges for expensive treatments. If the threshold is in fact low, we could end up with a health surcharge and extensive charging for individual treatments. This would have equity implications for migrants and a significant cost implication for the NHS in administering the charging system. Most importantly, it would continue the unfortunate introduction of questions about affordability just when the person is going in for treatment. Personally, I am rather hostile to the very idea of introducing financial issues of affordability at the time of treatment, which is why I rather favour the surcharge idea. I hope that the Minister can clarify to what extent these charges will exist within the health setting.

A second question is whether charging longer-term migrants who are in employment and paying taxes and national insurance is regarded as reasonable by the Government. It would be helpful to know their rationale for this proposal. Have they undertaken an impact assessment of it on the willingness of overseas employees to come to this country and take up jobs here?

A related issue concerns British citizens who work overseas for some years and then return to this country many years later to take up employment here. It had not occurred to me that this Bill could conceivably affect them, but others have raised the question and it would be good to have the Minister’s reassurance that British citizens in this situation will not be affected.

In relation to primary care, can the Minister clarify whether access for migrants to initial GP and nurse consultations will include the prescriptions that would arise from many of these consultations, or will the prescriptions be charged in full to patients? The same question applies to community care. If a migrant with a mental health problem cannot access community care because they cannot afford it at the primary care level, have the Government assessed the risk of these provisions increasing the costs of secondary services that would, I believe, be provided free of charge in emergencies to migrants? They should be, but there is undoubtedly a relationship between providing good services in primary care and so reducing the impact on secondary care costs.

I put on record my strong support for my noble friends Lord Hannay and Lord Bilimoria and others who argue that foreign students should be exempt from the Bill. As others have said, higher education is an important export industry for this country. Yet foreign student numbers are falling fast, as others have pointed out. The Government plan to exempt halls of residence: if there is a rationale for that, then surely there is a rationale for exempting all student lodgings, for example. It seems that the Government are shooting themselves in the foot on that one.

On the more general issue of plans to use landlords as unpaid immigration officers, I share the concern of my noble friend Lord Best that landlords are likely to avoid by a very wide berth the possible hassle and fee, or fine, involved in unwittingly failing to spot an illegal migrant. This proposal could have a serious impact on the availability of private rented accommodation to all but the most obviously British of potential tenants.

The Government’s briefing indicates that the checks will be straightforward and quick for law-abiding landlords and tenants to comply with. Can the Minister clarify what is meant by “straightforward”? For example, if the landlord asked to see the prospective tenant’s passport, with a visa no doubt stamped inside, would that be sufficient to avoid future questions and investigations involving the landlord concerned? I hope that it would be.

The Minister referred to plans to protect vulnerable people. This is another area where I have to say that I am not convinced. Government briefing refers to “much simpler documentary requirements” for homeless and vulnerable people. The problem will surely be the absence of any documents in the possession of homeless people and of women fleeing domestic violence. I cannot imagine them having any bits of paper in their pocket in that situation.

Here we are assured that an e-mail Home Office service will provide the necessary information for some cases: if this has not been done within 48 hours the landlord can proceed and rent the property. For those with no documentary evidence we are told that there will be another option to obtain confirmation from the Home Office that the prospective tenant can rent a property, but no time limit is given for that process. Can the Minister explain the difference, again before Committee, because it really does not seem helpful? Some clarification at this early point could save the time of the House in Committee and I look forward to receiving the Minister’s information.

20:59

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, the introduction to the recent BIS publication International Education: Global Growth and Prosperity says:

“There are few sectors of the UK economy with the capacity to grow and generate export earnings as impressive as education … Overseas students who come to Britain to study make a huge contribution to our economy”.

As we have heard, BIS estimates that in 2011-12 overseas students in higher education in the UK paid £10.2 billion in tuition fees and living expenses. It says that they boost the local economy where they study, as well as enhancing our cultural life and broadening the educational experience of the UK students that they study alongside. Bravo to that.

The conclusion of the BIS report is that it is realistic for numbers of international students in higher education to grow by 15% to 20% over the next five years. However, the report warns that for this to happen,

“we must show that the UK values international students, will provide a warm welcome and support while they are here and will keep in touch after they go home”.

That all sounds pretty good. It is a pity that the reality is somewhat different. Even the report admits that there are some problems. It says, somewhat euphemistically at this point:

“There remain some misunderstandings about visa rules and post study opportunities to work. We must signal clearly that there is no cap on the number of students who can come to study in the UK and no intention to introduce one. Nor is there any cap on the number of former students who can stay on to work as long as they have a graduate job”.

It is one thing to say that we are open to international students but quite another to take responsibility for the service that students are receiving—one for which they are going to have to pay an even higher premium price.

As I say, there are a number of areas where the Bill needs close scrutiny. Clause 11 restricts appeal rights to cases involving a human rights, asylum or humanitarian protection claim. International students lost their right of appeal for initial entry clearance by means of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, but these new provisions will remove the remaining rights to appeal against a refusal of leave to remain. Applicants will instead be able to request an administrative review. Universities UK has suggested that the Government should retain appeal rights for applications for Tier 4 leave to remain and PhD-level jobs. Does the Minister agree that this proposal has some considerable merit?

Other noble Lords have already spoken about Clause 15 on residential tenancies. It is clear that international students already face difficulties in securing accommodation and are often made to pay large fees and advance rent payments. The Bill may result in landlords or agents refusing to even consider international students as tenants, or charging additional fees to cover the extra administration costs. In the student sector, tenancies are entered into often months in advance of the actual tenancy start date but that is something that international students may not be able to do, particularly if they have to prove their immigration status so far in advance.

While, as we have heard, the Explanatory Notes suggest that some student accommodation will be exempt—we will have to see the detail of that—there is concern that these measures will discourage private landlords from letting accommodation to international students and to university staff, particularly at peak times when they are under pressure to make decisions quickly. Given that many international students are young and living away from home for the first time, does the Minister not agree that this clause could cause considerable anxiety and add to the perception that the UK is unwelcoming?

Several noble Lords have expressed concern about Clause 33 on NHS charges and we, too, have some concerns about their introduction. As several noble Lords have said, there are concerns about public health. Universal primary care allows potentially serious health problems to be identified early, when they are preventable or easily and cheaply treated. This applies equally to long-term conditions as well as to infectious diseases. On an individual level, the proposals will make another change: international students already make a significant contribution to the UK economy, bringing in, as we have heard, more than £10 billion a year, while international academic staff, critical to our position as a world-leading university sector, pay taxes and national insurance while they are here. Why are they being asked to pay more? To add more trouble, the charge will have to be paid up front for the full duration of the visa.

Taken as a whole, the requirements for students who wish to study in the UK are in many cases more stringent than in competitor countries, particularly in relation to language requirements, academic progression, limits on study time, the ability to bring in dependants and police registration. Introducing a surcharge for access to the NHS will, ironically, remove one area of relative advantage that the UK can currently offer. In combination, these measures may create the impression that it is now harder to secure a visa to study in the UK than anywhere else in the world. It will of course add significant up-front costs that will make us even more different from our competitors.

It is difficult to see how the aspirations of international education, global growth and prosperity can ever be realised if the Bill is not improved while it is in this House.

21:04

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, the fact that I am not addressing the wider implications in this Bill regarding students, detention caps and the positive contribution immigration makes does not mean that I do not have interest or concern in these important areas. I align myself with comments by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Dholakia and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.

As many noble Lords have stated, it is widely acknowledged there are significant delays and inefficiencies in the administration of immigration law, and this Bill will need to have greater clarity if it is not to add to this complexity. As the former Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales, I know the importance of having in place effective and efficient systems for casework and of ensuring good quality decision-making. Like other noble Lords, I note with some disappointment that the latest statistics at the Home Office reveal that 32% of deportation decisions and 50% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year. This is a high margin of error in casework. Yet Part 2 seeks to erode independent oversight in appeal rights making them difficult to access and curtailing judicial discretion. On present information on the quality of casework, it does not seem fair or just. Can the Minister reassure the House that he will ensure that the current quality of casework will be improved before reducing the opportunities for people to challenge decisions as the current standards in casework are a great concern? As my noble friend Lord Teverson said, it is an issue for competent management.

Clauses 33 and 34 in Part 3 could also potentially create new layers of bureaucracy for the NHS, as well as having some serious implications for race relations in the country. This may have unintended consequences. The clauses as they stand may require individuals to prove their identity before accessing services. In practice, this will invariably include individuals who are British citizens. As the noble Lord said, this may create unnecessary mistrust and suspicion. I would be grateful if the Minister can address these concerns to ensure that the myth does not become a reality.

As someone who has worked in the NHS for many years, I understand why NHS staff are not best placed to check the immigration status of their patients or to check that any surcharge payment was paid when a visa was first granted. Indeed, immigration status changes constantly, and it will be difficult to ensure all patients’ information is kept updated or to make sure that healthcare systems are equipped to understand immigration issues. Nurses’ and clinicians’ duty of care is to their patient and should be entirely focused on assessing and treating their clinical needs.

What about the healthcare and treatment of the children of individuals who have not paid the surcharge who become ill? Can the Minister give some reassurance that children will always receive free healthcare whatever the immigration status of their parents, as is their right under law? Like the Royal Collage of Nursing, the Terrence Higgins Trust and others, I believe that unless there is clear evidence that non-EU migrants are placing a significant burden on the NHS, the main focus should be on improving the current arrangements for chargeable patients. I pose the question: why is this not working now and, indeed, will this Bill improve it? If evidence shows the current system is not working effectively, then steps should be taken to rectify this, rather than applying a blanket approach to charging longer term migrants, who—and I agree entirely with the Royal College of Nursing—if in employment, will already be contributing to the NHS through taxes and national insurance. This is neither fair not equitable, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said. However, I welcome the Government’s decision to maintain free access to GP consultations, and maintain the current exemptions to charging, and in future to the surcharge, and to continue to include asylum seekers, refugees and victims of trafficking. But charging for healthcare in Clause 33 and redefining who counts as an ordinary resident—Clause 34—could increase the number of vulnerable people living in the UK. Even though infectious illnesses will be treated for free, having a two-tiered system will create confusion, and could delay and discourage people seeking the most appropriate help or having no help at all. This clearly has implications regarding public health and may end up costing the NHS more, particularly as the surcharge paid by migrants may not find its way into the NHS purse.

The Terrence Higgins Trust states that the current proposals will also have a negative impact on the Government’s efforts to, “reduce attendance and admissions to A&E, reduce undiagnosed HIV, and reduce late diagnosis of HIV”, and “improve long-term health and wellbeing of the population”.

I would be grateful if the Minister would address these issues, as I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would prefer answers at this stage rather than having them debated in Committee. I am sure the Government would not wish to create a bigger problem than the one it is currently claimed exists in the NHS, and hope that they move to a more research and evidence-based approach to immigration.

21:11

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, listening to this debate this afternoon and this evening, I have had a real sense of déjà vu, because the question of international students has been raised in the last two years, and the call for rational debate on immigration was first made by the Runnymede Trust when I was a director in 1982. But it seems that we never make much progress. At this stage I will inevitably be repeating what has already been said, for which I make no apology, because the strength of feeling is so strong it is worth repeating some of the points that have already been made.

This Bill seeks to create a hostile environment for irregular migrants. In so doing, I am afraid it will create a hostile environment for migrants seeking to enter or remain in the UK through legal channels. It will have a negative impact on international students, on public health generally, as we have heard, and put landlords in an invidious position. I fear the hostile environment it seeks to create for irregular migrants will be hostile to all of us. Proposals such as: administrative removal; extending immigration officers’ powers to use reasonable force by allowing them to do so in the exercise of all powers under any Immigration Act; indefinite retention of biometric information without justification and sufficient safeguards; removal of rights of appeal on any grounds other than asylum and human rights; denying any independent review to anyone else who makes an immigration application; and the introduction of landlord checks and new health charges for temporary migrants, raise not only practical questions but also questions of liberty and justice, principles on which we pride ourselves.

It is regrettable that in the other place a great deal of attention was paid to migration from Europe, but the most worrying aspects of the Bill were not properly scrutinised. It is very much to be hoped that this House will give sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill and its impact on migrants and society in general. I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the question of leadership, because it is leadership that is required if we want a proper, rational and calm debate. I hope that this House will have a cool look at some of these provisions to make sure that they do not erode liberties and justice, and do not have a negative practical impact on some of the groups mentioned.

In my capacity as the president of UK Council for International Student Affairs, I highlight the impact that proposals such as the abolition of appeal rights and their replacement with a system of administrative reviews; the requirement for all landlords to undertake immigration checks; and the introduction of a health levy are likely to have on international students. I shall concentrate on some of the practical aspects.

As we know, international students and their dependants often need to appeal against decisions by the Home Office to refuse applications for visa extensions when completing their degrees or moving to higher-level courses, for a wide variety of reasons. It is now officially accepted that nearly 50% of appeals are upheld because the decisions were unsound in the first place due to technical errors, which does not inspire much confidence that the administrative reviews will work. The Government’s claim that administrative reviews have been successfully introduced for entry clearance decisions overseas does not hold. They point to the small number of reviews that result in decisions being overturned, but evidence from members of UKCISA tells a different story. Given the time required for these reviews and when the students have so little time, very few risk going through the process, preferring to submit a repeat application at an additional cost. Furthermore, attempts to limit Article 8 will have an adverse impact on students as they will not be able to rely on this in future applications, or challenges to refusals or removal action.

We know of no evidence of tier 4 students abusing the appeals system, but there is extensive evidence of errors by the Home Office staff. The danger is that similar officials would conduct administrative reviews and could come to similarly erroneous decisions. Removal of appeal rights is not only unjust but ineffective; natural justice demands that that this should be preserved for all, and not just for students.

The proposal for immigration checks by landlords is fundamentally flawed. Let us look at the facts. There is no evidence that international students present any difficulty in this area. International tier 4 students have their immigration status checked by the sponsoring educational institution as part of their compliance procedures, so why duplicate? We have seen that even the now former Minister for Immigration had difficulty verifying the immigration status of his cleaner. Even employers with professional HR departments have very considerable difficulty assessing immigration status and the vast variety of schemes and immigration stamps that exist; it is very easy to make mistakes. It is, therefore, difficult to see how landlords will be able to make appropriate judgments. The majority will play safe and consequently those of different colour, accent or origin will suffer. Where is the justice in that?

Then there are concerns about the availability of documents when visa extensions are being processed for those continuing to higher education courses, just when the same paperwork may be required for new accommodation. The requirement essentially to have a visa before renting accommodation, a process which is often done online, will make it difficult if not impossible for international students to arrange accommodation securely in advance of arrival. I know that there is now an exemption in the Bill for university-managed accommodation, but this does not address the potential problems as the vast majority of students are in privately rented accommodation. This proposal should be withdrawn altogether or at least all students should be exempted.

I turn to the health service levy. The principle of introducing any sort of health service charge for international students is unnecessary and unjustified. International students already pay the full cost of their education and all their living expenses, amounting to total earnings of £13.6 billion annually for the economy. They support local economies, paying VAT and tax on part-time earnings. They are, therefore, making a major financial contribution to the UK. There is no evidence to show extensive abuse of the NHS or health tourism.

As the levy, if imposed, will be paid with the visa application, it will be seen as an increase in the visa fee—yet another disincentive. The Government argue that other countries do this, but this does not take into account the fact that other countries have taken positive steps to attract international students. In our case, it is the cumulative effect of our policy towards international students—biometrics, entry clearance, institutional immigration checks and police registration—that acts as a major disincentive.

Consequences are evident. The Russell Group universities say that in 2010-11 new intakes of postgraduate students from India at Russell Group universities dropped by 21%, with a further 18% drop anticipated in 2012-13. They say that even the growth rate in new students from China has now started to taper off. By contrast, Indian postgraduate student numbers to the US increased by 40% in 2013. Visas granted to Indian students across all levels in Australia rose by 22% in the year following the introduction of a more open immigration policy. Visas granted to Indian students in Canada rose by 8%.

We all know that after many years of growth, 2012-13 saw the first reduction since records began in the number of non-EU higher education students and, for the second year running, a reduction of 25% in students from India and 19% for students from Pakistan. In April 2012, India’s Commerce and Industry Minister, the honourable Anand Sharma, reminded UK Ministers that Indian IT companies were considering relocating from the UK as a result of difficulties in the UK immigration system. He also emphasised wider issues such as visas for business trips and restrictions affecting Indian students hoping to study in the UK. That was two years ago.

The Government, in their report, International Education Strategy—Global Growth and Prosperity, said that their approach was a warm welcome for international students, and explained that there was no cap on the number of international students who could come to the UK, and that they would support students when things go wrong in their home. However, the proposals in the Bill run contrary to the intentions of this strategy. Because students are part of the overall government target to reduce migration, they are getting caught in these measures.

On a number of occasions, as my noble friend Lord Hannay said, EU Sub-Committee F, of which I am a member, has said that international students should be removed from the public policy implications of the Government’s policy of reducing net migration. We have argued that nothing short of this will enable the UK to remain competitive in attracting international students. The IPPR report published in December 2013 argued that the Home Office’s net migration target had created a perverse incentive for the Government to reduce the number of international students officially counted as migrants in order to achieve an overall reduction in migrant numbers. They said that this was harming the UK economy. This is an opportunity to change the policy, remove international students from this target and stop them getting caught in these proposals. I very much hope that the Government will pay heed to these issues and that I will not have a sense of déjà vu 10 years on.

21:23

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, it is about time that this country had a sensible, calm and balanced approach to discussing immigration and asylum. We seem over recent years to have indulged in hysteria, false facts and scaremongering. That does not help us as a country to make sensible decisions.

Perhaps I may share a little experience and give this issue a lighter touch. Recently, I was in a café-restaurant with some friends and, from her accent, the waitress was clearly not British—she was from somewhere in eastern Europe. As I usually do, I asked, just out of interest, “Where are you from?”. She said that she was from the Czech Republic. We asked, “What are you doing here? Are you here to work, study or what?”. “No”, she said, “I am here to have fun. That’s all. When I have had fun, I am going back to the Czech Republic”. I thought that that just about put it in the right perspective, when compared with all the hysteria about these people coming here. She just wanted to have fun because she saw London as a place where she could do so, perhaps more fun than in her own country.

On the whole, however, this debate does not have much fun to it. It is gloomy and the climate of opinion on migration and migrants has been generally hostile. There are, of course, problems. None of us believes in sham marriages. We should deal with illegal immigration, provided there is evidence, not just accusations. As my noble friend said, we have to have a basis for any policy so we know what we are doing and why we are doing it. We know that immigration has been of overall benefit to this country. The difficulty is the imbalance between the contribution made by immigration to Britain and the economy, compared with the local areas where people settle and where there may be more pressure on services. Although the country as a whole benefits, the areas where migrants—or some of them—tend to settle need a bit more help with housing, health, education and transport. If there was no such imbalance, the whole thing could be managed better. A lot of the skill in immigration policy is in dealing with this imbalance so that we go on benefiting, as a country, but local communities are given the help to which they are entitled, given that they are contributing to benefits for the whole country. That should be the basis of a policy followed by any British Government.

I turn to some details of the Bill. I am concerned that some policies may be intensive in staff time at the Home Office and elsewhere and there may well be problems with the adequacy of resources. Other noble Lords have mentioned rights of appeal. There must be a concern that cuts in legal aid will make these less effective or meaningful. The Joint Committee on Human Rights talked, in its report, about constraints to the right of a tribunal to consider a new matter. That constraint has been applied, in Clause 11, so that the Secretary of State decides whether any new matter can be dealt with by a tribunal. Why can the tribunals not decide themselves what is sensible in relation to cases before them? The Bill will also increase the potential for judicial reviews, some of which may have to take place on behalf of people who are no longer in the country. That is virtually impossible to do. In any case, the Government are increasing the likelihood of judicial reviews at a time when the Lord Chancellor has protested that there are already too many.

Many references have been made to difficulties with Clause 15 and later clauses dealing with residential tenancies. It is very unpleasant for individuals to have to check on others and say: “Produce the evidence so I can let my flat to you”. This is neither the topic of the Bill nor a popular cause, but I sometimes wonder—without advocating them—whether ID cards might have dealt with a lot of these things painlessly, fairly and sensibly. However, the country has moved away from that, although ID cards would have helped on this and a number of other things too. Anybody coming to the country could have been given a temporary ID card to cover them while the basis of their stay was being resolved. There is a difficulty with residential tenancies and I fear that some of the policies might lead to more homelessness, especially for children.

In his very nice opening speech, the Minister made the Bill seem much blander and nicer than it actually is. This is a skill on his part but does not help us very much. He said it was the Government’s aim not to have children in detention. I cannot remember what the position is at the moment. Some of us have campaigned for years, both under the previous Government and this one, arguing that children should not be detained under immigration powers. What is the position and, if it continues, when will it be phased out?

I turn to the subject of health. As has already been mentioned, the prospect of charging for maternity care is alien to the best principles of decent healthcare. It would, surely, be right to exempt all pregnant women and children from charges. Starting antenatal care after 20 weeks is a risk factor, as is not attending antenatal appointments and screening. There is also a risk to the health of the child and an increased chance of infant mortality. Should not all pregnant women and new mothers have a GP and other primary care services for free, including access to prescriptions and whatever else is necessary? I think that it would be right to exempt from charges asylum seekers, refugees, children in local authority care and victims of trafficking. What will the position be as regards refused asylum seekers and undocumented migrants? Will they face NHS charges, including for primary care and A&E treatment?

I turn to the question of victims of trafficking. Admittedly, if they have been recognised as victims of trafficking, they may be helped by the Bill, but of course we know that quite a number of such victims are afraid to present themselves lest they be treated as illegal immigrants. I have heard this from NGOs and others in all parts of the country. There is a real concern about this. If we are to deal with victims of trafficking, we must not allow the authorities or the powers-that-be to make them criminals. They should be seen as victims and not as criminals. Therefore, the registration system for assessing eligibility for NHS treatment must not be linked to the Home Office in such a way that accessing treatment can be used as a means of immigration enforcement. The danger is that that will happen.

We know that it is hard for a homeless person to register with a GP. The result is that homeless people attend A&E six times more often than the general population and they stay in hospital for three times as long. This is at a time when everybody is trying to find ways of reducing pressure on A&E departments, yet the consequence will be to increase it.

Of course, there are problems with charging systems. The chair of the BMA council regarded the proposed charges as “impractical, uneconomic and inefficient”. I understand that the Department of Health did a piece of qualitative research among health professionals last year, and there is a concern that,

“the cost of setting up a new complex infrastructure may outweigh any increase in income”.

If that is not enough, the headline on page 24 of today’s Evening Standard—I am not sure how authoritative this is—reads: “GPs turning away refugees to avoid ‘staggering’ task of registering them”. That bears out the point that I have just made.

I turn briefly to the question of work. I think that it would be right to allow asylum seekers to work if an initial decision in their case was not made within six months. It seems to me that letting people hang on unemployed, unable to work and in very poor circumstances is not sensible either for them or for the country. My suggestion is limited to those whose cases are not decided initially within six months. If they worked, there would be a lesser burden on taxpayers and a route out of poverty for asylum seekers. I understand that at the moment 5,500 asylum seekers have been waiting for more than six months for an initial decision and are still unable to work. It would also avoid the negative consequences of prolonged economic exclusion and forced inactivity. Those would all be bonuses. Surely it would be more sensible to let asylum seekers work in the circumstances that I have described.

Before I finish, I want to say a word about the deprivation of citizenship. I understand that this should be strictly limited to instances where a person can immediately gain another nationality, but, as I understand it, nothing in the Bill would prevent deprivation of citizenship taking place. Sometimes, citizenship can be taken from a person while that person is not in the country. There have been instances of that—not many but a few. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong if we took away citizenship from an individual, who would be left high and dry and effectively stateless.

The way that we deal with vulnerable people, immigrants and asylum seekers is a test of what sort of country we are. It is a test of our commitment to human rights and it is how we are judged on the international stage.

21:34

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, this Bill is not one that a majority Liberal Democrat Government would have brought forward. We have worked in coalition to improve this Bill and it is clear from what noble Lords have said that more needs to be done.

It is important that this Bill should be put into context. What is it trying to achieve? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that most reasonable people do not believe that there is a danger of this country being overwhelmed by a tsunami of immigrants. We do, however, have to be very careful about the way in which we use statistics in this area. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts talked about population growth. Can the Minister confirm that, in 2012-13, only 20% of the population growth in the UK was due to immigration?

My noble friend Lady Hamwee also suggested that we should examine what underlies hostility and fear towards immigrants. Perhaps the most commonly raised issues from those who oppose all further immigration are the claims that immigrants are taking our jobs and homes. As my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece described in relation to the care sector, there are so many areas of industry and public services that would grind to a halt if it were not for those workers whose origins are overseas—whether they are first or subsequent-generation immigrants. It is not a phenomenon unique to the United Kingdom that immigrants, children and grandchildren of immigrants become the mainstay of the workforce in certain sectors. As my noble friend Lord Dholakia said, one in four NHS doctors is a migrant. Those who oppose immigration do not talk about the many thousands of jobs that immigrant entrepreneurs create by bringing investment and innovation into the country. Not only do immigrants as a whole contribute more to the British economy in taxation and national insurance than they take out in benefits, they also start businesses that employ many thousands of British people from every background.

As far as taking our homes is concerned, I wish there were more homes that immigrants could be accused of taking. The appalling lack of social housing and what, in some areas, is laughingly called affordable housing means that they are effectively out of the reach of hard-working families. Vast swathes of housing—particularly newbuild in London—are snapped up by overseas investors who have no intention of becoming immigrants. These are the real culprits, not immigration. It is much easier and politically expedient to blame immigrants for the housing crisis which successive Governments have created by their failure to build homes, particularly in the social sector.

There is no hope of considering this Bill objectively—as my noble friends Lord Avebury, Lord Taverne and Lord Roberts of Llandudno have said—if it is done against the distorted backdrop painted by UKIP, the Daily Mail and their sympathisers. They may have convinced too many of the electorate that the consequences of the economic recession for the labour market and the failure to build our way out of the housing crisis are the fault of immigration. It is easier to blame others than it is to blame ourselves, but we should not fall into the same trap. Listening to this debate, I am pleased that none of the Members of your Lordships’ House has done this.

We must have sensible, reasonable and practical controls on immigration; these are needed to address real problems with our existing rules and practices. We must, however, not have irrational, draconian and impractical measures to address the fictitious spectres created as scapegoats for the real challenges faced by families in this country.

The large number of noble friends who have spoken has made the depth of feeling and the concerns we have about this Bill very clear. As my noble friend Lord Teverson said, it is not just the measures; it is the damaging message that we are hostile that a Bill such as this sends to the rest of the world. Many in your Lordships’ House today, including my noble friends Lady Benjamin and Lord Clement-Jones, have expressed concerns about the effect of the Bill on overseas students, whose numbers should not be included in overall immigration figures in any event. We have learnt about the practical difficulties, particularly for overseas students seeking accommodation, that would be presented if this Bill goes through as it is.

The most important reform that we wish to see has nothing to do with this Bill. We want the correct immigration decisions made when the application is first considered. The UK Border Agency clearly was not working effectively and we welcome bringing immigration issues back within the Home Office. But, no matter what the grounds for appeal are or the number of appeals that are allowed, if currently 50% of appeals are successful the Home Office is not getting it right first time. Many of the problems with the current system—delays, indefinite detention and the detention of children—are the consequences of not getting it right first time.

Government effort and energy should be focused on improving the current system before implementing some of the changes proposed in this Bill. We want changes that work and, where we do not know whether they will work or not, we want them piloted. That is why the Government have agreed initially to limit the power to require landlords to check a tenant’s immigration status to one pilot area, rather than nationwide, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Over the weekend, we saw how difficult it is to check someone’s immigration status. Clearly that will be a major difficulty and we need to see how it works in practice.

Not much has been said about the fact that this Bill allows immigration officers to use reasonable force in the exercise of any of their powers, not just for removal. Coupled with the ability to take biometric information from those whom they suspect of being illegally in the country, that makes these high-profile raids on businesses run by people from traditional illegal immigration areas such as the Hong Kong Chinese even more worrying.

Detention without trial also is a serious issue, as Parliament has made clear even where terrorism is suspected. Not to allow appeals against detention within 14 days of proposed deportation without the authority of the Secretary of State is a worrying development. Replacing appeal to a judicial tribunal against a refusal to allow entry with an administrative review, when current appeals are running at about a 50% success rate, is again a concern. As my noble friend Lady Manzoor has said, were the decision-making in the Home Office already of a very high quality, we might be more relaxed about this measure. That may be a useful way forward in addition to, but not instead of, a right to appeal.

My noble friend the Minister no doubt will say that, with 87% of applications already being granted, there should be a higher degree of confidence in decision-making in the Home Office. However, the fact is that the 50% of appeals which are granted are the only ones subjected to a rigorous review. We do not know whether the decision-making in the 87% of cases is correct.

While many would support “deport now, appeal later” in relation to foreign criminals, allowing the Home Office, with its current record, to be the sole arbiter of what constitutes,

“a real risk of serious irreversible harm”,

as the only grounds for not going ahead with it, and extending the power to those whose presence the Secretary of State alone considers to be not “conducive to public good”, seems to give powers to a body that currently has a poor record of judgment.

Clearly, the Article 8 right to a family life needs to be balanced against the public interest—it is not an absolute right—but for the courts to be instructed what weight Article 8 rights should be given appears to me to be an interference with the balancing judgment that has previously been the sole responsibility of the courts.

It may be right that some of those from abroad who have not paid national insurance contributions should be charged for treatment under the National Health Service, but surely this should not apply to those who come here legally to work and who will in effect be paying twice through the charge proposed by this Bill and through their own national insurance contributions.

The Liberal Democrats want to support rational and practical steps to ensure that a firm but fair immigration system is in place. We need to be convinced that the measures proposed in this Bill will actually work without unintended and unacceptable consequences.

21:45

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I declare a number of immigration interests. As Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons I was responsible for inspecting all places of immigration detention, during the course of which I found much wrong with the system, such as the use of inappropriate detention rules which, fortunately, I was able to correct. From 2007 to 2009 with my noble friends Lady Mar and Lord Sandwich I was a member of an independent asylum commission which submitted three reports to the then Government, containing detailed analysis of what was wrong with the asylum system and numerous recommendations for improvement.

In 2008, I forwarded a carefully researched dossier to the Home Secretary, entitled Outsourcing Abuse, which listed details of more than 70 cases of injury to failed asylum seekers undergoing enforced removal. In 2010, I was a member of a government advisory board on the use of child detention, whose recommendations I hope to see realised in this Bill. Finally, in 2011-12 I chaired an independent commission on enforced removals whose recommendations were forwarded to both the Home Secretary and the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee. This followed the death of an Angolan, Jimmy Mubenga, in an aircraft at Heathrow at the hands of G4S escort officers and on which the coroner’s inquest verdict was unlawful killing. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I focus tonight on the clauses and schedules in the Bill to do with enforced removals.

Before that, I must declare my acute disappointment that yet again a Government have failed to tackle a major millstone that prevents the immigration system from being able to function properly: namely, the 502,412 unresolved cases, of which more than 190,000 were in the migrant refusal pool in July 2013. I was first introduced to this problem one day in 1997 while visiting Birmingham prison, where I was told that a number of foreign national prisoners had gone on hunger strike. When I went to see them I found that they were not foreign nationals who had committed offences, but Asian people who had been living in England for more than 20 years, most married with families and many with their own businesses. They had suddenly been rounded up, mostly in Yorkshire, and taken to Birmingham purely because it appeared to have space, so that their details and their right to remain could be checked. The trouble with having such a millstone around a system’s neck, particularly when resources are limited, is that progress is impossible because so many staff have to spend their time trying to keep its head above water. By progress I mean such things as introducing time limits on the completion of essential bureaucratic processes.

I was faced with a similar, but far smaller situation, when I was commanding troops in Belfast. Every base had a card index for everyone who lived, or had been questioned, in an area, going back several years, which was used to verify the identity of anyone stopped on the streets. Then we were issued with a computer system, but no guidance as to how it was to be loaded with data on literally thousands of cards. The only possible solution was to ground all my military policemen for two weeks and sit them at computers until they had transcribed every detail.

The only way that the Home Office will remove its millstone is to do something similar and draft in temporary staff until the millstone is cleared. Only then will there be time and space for change and improvement. Because of the avoidable damage that a chaotic and dysfunctional immigration system—which seems likely to be made worse by some of the proposals in the Bill—does to the national image, I would have expected that to have been appreciated and actioned years ago. I await the Minister’s comments on that suggestion with interest.

I turn now to Clauses 1 and 2 of Part 1, Clause 58 of Part 5 and Schedules 1 and 7. One of the depressing things about submitting a report to the Home Office, however constructive and well researched, is that you know that no one there will take a blind bit of notice of anything that is not produced in-house. My commission was appalled to find that the restraint techniques used by contracted private sector escort officers were required by the Home Office to be used only in prison. No one had bothered to check with the NHS, which had rejected the pain-compliant prison techniques, devising its own pain-free ones that were more appropriate for patients. Neither had the police, who come under the Home Office and who had developed pain-free techniques suitable for use in crowded and restricted public places such as river ferries been consulted. No training requirements were laid down and escort officers were neither accredited nor licensed. No one in the Home Office is qualified to do this, but no one had thought of approaching the Security Industry Authority, which is.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, the standard of casework is abysmal. All too frequently, escorts are told nothing about the characteristics of the understandably concerned people whom they are to escort until shortly before a flight.

Independent oversight was totally lacking until the Chief Inspector of Prisons was invited to observe a return flight and was appalled at the way in which escorts talked openly to and about returnees in front of him and them. Extraordinarily, independent oversight is said to be the responsibility of the Home Office Professional Standards Unit, which is incapable of doing what is required and bizarrely is itself overseen by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which has nothing to do with asylum casework. It is hard to imagine anything less fit for purpose. We also strongly recommended improved powers for the Immigration Services Commissioner to deal with rogue advisers.

As this detail had not been found by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which had published a report previously on enforced removals, I discussed our findings with its chairman in the fond hope that he might take them formally into evidence in a reopened inquiry, in which case the Home Office might take them seriously, too. But despite assurances from time to time, he has not yet done that, so I hope that amendments to the Bill will provide the vehicle. I do not believe that Clause 1, or paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, which allows untrained and unlicensed immigration officers to use unspecified but allegedly “reasonable force”, when there is such an authentic catalogue of unreasonable force being used by those on Home Office contracts, including a charge of unlawful killing, should be allowed to stand. I go further by suggesting that it would be wholly irresponsible of this House not to try to ensure that current practice is wound up in favour of something more akin to our claim to be a civilised nation.

There is much else in the Bill about which other noble Lords have already expressed their unease. Yet again, we seem destined to spend long hours trying to improve legislation produced in haste and rushed through the other place without sufficient time for scrutiny. Bearing in mind how many Members of Parliament have regular contact with immigration problems in their constituencies, I am surprised that so little was done to amend what was laid before them. No doubt making up for that deficiency is a prospect to which the Minister looks forward with eager anticipation.

21:54

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip for suggesting that I might step into the gap for a moment or two and I shall be very brief indeed. What we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, gives us great concern about the extension to all immigration officers of the power to use so-called “reasonable force” to bring about whatever the order before them is. I suspect that the noble Lord knows better than almost anybody else in this House how all these things operate. Unless we consider closely the illiberal power that we are effectively giving to every last immigration officer, this House should seriously ask how far it can possibly go along with it.

The second thing that I want to say is that, if noble Lords wanted proof of the huge contribution that immigrants have made to this country over the years, they only need to look around this House during this debate. I should declare my own involvement as, along with my noble friend Lord Dholakia, I am a patron of the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group. One of the most amazing occurrences is the group’s ability to recruit hundreds of volunteers from the neighbourhood of Gatwick, who come to be with, befriend, speak to and advise those who are locked up in that detention centre. That shows that, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, given the right leadership, the people in this country are capable of responding in the most warm and generous way.

I will conclude by asking three direct questions of the Minister, who is thorough in paying attention to the views and opinions in this House, which are always taken seriously, as they should be. The first relates to the interesting and detailed suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. How far have those been taken into account in reconsidering what the first tier should be able to bring to its attention in making the kind of decision that might actually be unquestionable, good, accurate and able to last? In all my life in politics—since I was myself a Minister of State at the Home Office—this has been the holy grail. Can we not find an answer in the first tier, to avoid the endless agony of paying legal costs and all the rest of it for a second, third, fourth and fifth tier? My first question therefore is: how far will the solid suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, be part of the changing and reform of that first tier?

The second question relates to the health surcharge. Here, my noble friend Lady Manzoor made extremely important points, but I want to add another. The BMA, the British Medical Association, which represents all doctors in this country, and the National Aids Trust, NAT, which looks in particular at HIV, have both spoken as clearly as they could about the great danger of any kind of fee at this level. For example, people visiting A&E or going beyond the GP whom they first see who advises treatment would be brought into the area of having to pay. How much will that discourage people who are already desperate for money from going to their GP, let alone going to A&E?

Yet we have in this country two major threats in infectious diseases. One is HIV, which is relatively easily transferred, and the other, which we have not so far mentioned, is drug-related tuberculosis, which is gaining ground every month that passes. This is partly because people are coming from parts of the world where there is extensive drug-related tuberculosis. This must be caught early, to ensure that it is not passed on. My noble friend Lord Patel—who, along with several others who came to this country in the last generation or two, has made such a contribution to the health service—knows very well the dangers that we are talking about.

The third question relates to something that we have not talked about at all, strangely enough: a distinctive flaw in the flow of immigrants to this country. To put it bluntly—and I do not mind being blunt in this brilliant debate—it is relatively easy at the moment for somebody who is truly wealthy to get into this country without too many problems with immigration. At the present time there are whole blocks of flats, very possibly including a block of flats that may emerge from Battersea power station, being auctioned in Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere for people who want a second home in London. That is not helpful to anybody. Above all, if the people who are part of that are people who have a lot of wealth in tax havens, it will not do immigration as such any good. However, if you are a poverty-stricken asylum seeker who has been fighting for democracy in your country, living with great risks, you will find it terribly difficult to get into this country, however hard you try.

I conclude with this. It was the late Aneurin Bevan, that great Labour statesman, who once said that you do not need to look into the crystal if you can read the book. Look around this Chamber, read the book, ask yourself what immigrants have brought to this country and be thankful for it, and let us make sure that we are not part of what one might call the narrowing of the British imagination by closing the door to the huge gifts and innovations and treasures that our flow of immigrants over the years have brought to this country.

22:00

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, with the permission of the House, I, too, should like to speak briefly in the gap. I apologise, but I was unable to be in the House until six o’clock today, and so did not put my name down for the debate.

My major concern about the Bill is its wide-ranging implications for the safety and welfare of children, not least the proposals to limit children’s access to healthcare and housing. Those and other proposals run counter to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Further, Clause 14 would restrict Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but I notice that the Minister asserts on the front of the Bill that it is compatible with the convention. I would like him to explain how that can be.

The Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act imposed a statutory duty on the Home Secretary to have concern for the welfare of children. It is a requirement for the Home Secretary to ensure that regard is had for children’s safety and welfare in the implementation of government policy on immigration, asylum and nationality. That clearly includes the Bill, but the Explanatory Memorandum makes no mention of children apart from a brief comment in relation to the provision on biometric information. I do not understand how that can be.

There are other crucial issues in the Bill, such as the restriction of appeals, the effect on higher education institutions, about which we heard from many noble Lords, and more general access to healthcare and housing to people unable to prove their status.

As we all know, cuts are being made to the level of staff in the UK Border Agency, but that does not make it in any way appropriate for the gap to be filled, at least in part, by asking nurses and landlords to become the gatekeepers. What does that say about this country and the whole question of the compassion that we offer? My noble friend Lord Judd spoke eloquently on that, and it is lacking in the proposals in the Bill.

By common consent, the Bill was denied proper consideration in Committee in another place. We have six days of Committee in your Lordships’ House, which offers the opportunity for that imbalance to be corrected and to deal with some of the ways in which the Bill needs to be amended. I look forward to contributing to that process.

22:03

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a lengthy, interesting and, at times, passionate debate. Some noble Lords have addressed the general approach to immigration and the overall thrust of the measures contained in the Bill. Other contributions have homed in on the implications of specific clauses and proposals, such as limiting the right of appeal for First-tier Tribunal cases when the real problem that needs addressing is the number of decisions appealed that are determined as being wrong.

Among other areas of concern regularly referred to this evening have been the impact of the proposals on international students, undocumented migrant children and landlords and prospective tenants. However, in the comments at the beginning of the debate, my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon pointed out that it is equally relevant in this debate to talk about what is not in the Bill.

Before moving on any further, it is worth pointing out that the Bill has not been subject to the most thorough of consultation processes. Prior to the Bill, there was no draft Bill, Green Paper or White Paper. The Bill also appeared to be delayed in the other place for reasons which may have had more to do with internal issues within the larger party in the coalition than any other factor.

Then, 24 hours before the four-and-a-half-hour debate that was Report stage in the other place, followed immediately by a very brief Third Reading, the Government published a major new clause on deprivation of citizenship for conduct seriously prejudicial to vital interests of the United Kingdom. This left little or no time for the Government’s proposed new clause, giving a significant power to the Secretary of State, to be considered in detail, including, for example, what would happen to people made stateless—my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws referred to this—and why there was no provision for judicial oversight. These were hardly the actions of a Government keen on providing the appropriate opportunities for scrutiny of their proposals by Parliament.

We also had the spectacle on Report in the other place of the Home Secretary’s speaking against one of her own Back-Bencher’s amendments, on deporting foreign criminals, to her own Immigration Bill. Having said that the amendment would be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and would significantly undermine the United Kingdom’s ability to deport foreign criminals, the Home Secretary then failed to vote against it.

Finally, this weekend we heard that the Minister for Immigration, who proved himself not to be the greatest admirer of this House during the controversy on House of Lords reform, had resigned, since it appeared he had employed someone who was an illegal immigrant. This happened after the Government have repeatedly said that there will be no real difficulties for landlords in carrying out the new requirements in this Bill to ensure they are not renting accommodation to illegal immigrants. If a Minister for Immigration can get it wrong, there must now be even bigger question marks over the practicality of at least some of the proposals in this Bill and over the actual impact they will have on immigration in contrast to the headlines when they are first put forward.

My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon made clear earlier our agreement that immigration needed to be properly and effectively managed, our agreement that we need to tackle illegal immigration and our agreement that we need to ensure that, when appropriate, foreign criminals are deported. On these important points, however, the Government have been wholehearted in their rhetoric and half-hearted in their actions. The infamous van and its advert, to which some noble Lords have referred, sums up this Government’s approach. Border and immigration staff have been reduced, the number of illegal immigrants deported has fallen and the number of businesses fined for using illegal workers has almost halved between 2009 and 2012. The Bill is silent on remedying the causes of these failures by the Government.

How much better it would have been for community relations in this country and for the whole tenor of the debate on immigration if the Government’s action had been wholehearted and the Government’s rhetoric half-hearted rather than the other way round. What is needed is a reasoned debate about making sure that immigration delivers positively for our country. That includes having appropriate measures to control immigration, tackling illegal immigration and abuses of the system, having an overall approach to addressing the impact of immigration on people’s lives—to give two examples, in the labour market and the housing market—but also recognising the benefits that immigration has brought to our country. That will not be achieved through legislation that was not properly scrutinised in the Commons and through legislation whose passage appears to be geared, as far as the Government are concerned, to deadlines related to elections in the middle of this year, if not beyond.

The Government have said they are going to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands by May 2015. The objective is presumably 99,999, even if that means its being secured at the cost, to our country, of people leaving whom we should want to stay and highly qualified people, including university students, whom it would be in our interests to attract, not coming to this country. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are on track to meet their declared policy objective within the timescale laid down and what contribution the Bill is expected to make, if any, towards meeting the Government’s target on net migration and over what timescale?

Much of the Bill relates to illegal immigration, which is not covered by the Government’s “tens of thousands” objective. The Bill seeks to transfer some responsibility for controlling illegal immigration to specific groups of citizens of this country and, by implication, away from the Government. It does not, however, address the issue of exploitation and abuse of immigrants which, for so long as it is allowed to continue, contributes to the level of illegal immigration. Although we share the Government’s objective of wanting properly controlled and managed immigration, it does not let them off the hook of having to make the case for each one of their proposals in the Bill.

Making the case means providing hard evidence on the extent and nature of the problem or issue that the Government are seeking to address; providing hard evidence that the practical implications and feasibility of what is proposed have been thought through; and providing hard evidence that the claimed impact of what is proposed on the problem or issue that the Government are seeking to address is also a realistic expectation. For a start, the Government’s own impact assessment states, without any caveats, that the Bill,

“will make a significant contribution to reducing illegal immigration”.

That could be the case but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide the hard evidence and figures on which that statement is based, including telling us by how much the proposals in the Bill will reduce illegal immigration.

It will also help detailed consideration of the Bill if the Minister could indicate which of the measures proposed in it the Government consider will make the biggest contributions towards reducing illegal immigration or impacting on the net migration figure. It is only right that we should have that information because concerns have been raised about some specific proposals in the Bill and, in some cases, the potential unintended consequences on law-abiding British citizens, legal visitors and visa holders who contribute positively to our country. People need to be in a position to make their own judgment on whether the evidence on the changes that the proposals will actually deliver justifies the risk of any associated unintended consequences if these cannot be addressed. What will not help would be if it becomes clear that there are proposals in the Bill that are here for show rather than effectiveness.

One proposal on which there has been some comment is that defining public interest in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when considering immigration cases. The Bill seeks to put on the statute book the terms of the most recent Immigration Rules. It is moving guidance or rules into law passed by Parliament, with a view to tying down how the judiciary interprets the public interest and the weight that should be attached to it in immigration cases. That is a significant development and the Minister set out the reasons for the Government going down this road in introducing the Bill. We have a whole raft of guidelines on sentencing across a range of offences and on the weight that should be attached to different factors. It would be helpful to know whether the way that the courts are interpreting other guidelines or rules is also a cause of concern to the Government and, if so, whether they are considering enshrining any of those in statute.

Coming back to the reasons for the Government including Clause 14, can the Minister give some indication of the number of judgments since the revised Immigration Rules came into effect which the Government have felt did not properly reflect the terms of those rules, in respect of what the public interest requires and the weight that should be attached to it? What number of judgments have there been which the Government feel have reflected the terms of those rules? Can the Minister also indicate what the Government anticipate will be the effect of passing Clause 14 into law on the number of people coming into and leaving this country in a calendar year?

Finally in respect of Clause 14, can the Minister spell out the evidence the Government are relying on to insert, as a statement of fact, its wording that,

“persons who seek to enter or remain in the United Kingdom”,

and who are able to speak English,

“are less of a burden on taxpayers”,

than—one assumes, although the Bill does not say it—those who cannot speak English and who are seeking to enter or remain in the United Kingdom? I am not saying that the proposed wording is factually incorrect but if such wording is to be enshrined in the law of the land, the Government ought to be clear about the hard evidence on which it is based and place it on the record.

In his introductory speech, the Minister spoke about policies and proposals in the Bill striking the right balance, and the Bill not making the United Kingdom less attractive to legal migrants. From the speeches today it is clear that most of your Lordships do not share this somewhat idyllic view of the Bill as currently worded. However, one opinion expressed by the Minister that will not be disputed is that over the coming weeks, as he said, this House will give this Bill the serious scrutiny that it now demands and needs.

22:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a long but thorough, wide-ranging and thoughtful debate on a topic of great interest inside this Chamber and in Parliament in general, and to people outside. Immigration is a topic regularly discussed the length and breadth of this country.

As I said at the beginning of the debate, it is important that we recognise the positive contribution that migrants have made to this country. I could not agree more with my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby. Migrants will continue to make a great contribution to this country. It is none the less right and proper that Parliament acts where necessary to bring the legal framework that underpins our immigration system up to date, and to ensure that the welcome that we extend to migrants brings benefits to us all.

I have said that this has been a wide-ranging debate and if I were going to cover a fraction of the points in my reply this evening, we would be here long after taxis—indeed, I suspect, long after midnight. This would perhaps tax my ability to give satisfactory answers. I will seek to address the general issues that have been raised in the debate, but I hope that noble Lords will allow me something that I have frequently sought in debate and that is to write a commentary, which I will also copy to the Library, for all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and seek to address in detail the many questions that have been raised.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who wrote to me and indicated those issues that he has raised. We can see that they are significant ones and I think that the whole House would like a response to them, but to go into that detail now might take quite a while. My noble friend Lady Manzoor suggested that we should try to find ways of responding before we get to Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made the same comment. So I will try to get a commentary on the debate to noble Lords for the beginning of the week when we come back after our recess, which will give people time to consider it before we go into Committee on this Bill.

Noble Lords know that my approach to legislation is to try to engage with and reassure them, and learn from them the points that they are making, and seek an understanding between the Government and this House. I have already had a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I expect that that week when we return will be a busy one for engagement. I hope that any noble Lord who would like to see me for a chat about a particular issue will get in touch with me. I see myself as a servant of this House in that respect.

Before I go into any detail, perhaps I can start by referring to some speeches that I think tried to give the House a sense of the context in which we are discussing this issue. My noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater tried to put the issue that the Government face into context. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, a most excellent speech, if I may say so, which referred again to the bigger picture in which the policy decisions that we are talking about in the Bill need to be considered. My noble friend Lord Dholakia referred to the contribution of migration to this country. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, made a brilliant speech, if I may say so—not one in which I could agree with everything that he said, but it was good that he expressed that point of view. It is a challenge for us in government to respond to the points that he made.

My noble friend Lord Eccles sought a reasoned approach, which I hope this House will bring to the subject. It is very easy to get passionate about this issue because people’s lives are affected by decisions that Parliament makes, but I hope that we can discuss it in a rational and positive way; that is certainly the way in which I see the legislation and myself. My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots made, yet again, a remarkable speech, challenging some of the views of other noble Lords but, I think, putting at its heart social cohesion and putting migration—economic migration in particular—into some context, which challenged much of our received opinion on the issue.

Britain is now outpacing many of its competitors in its economic recovery. English is a global language and we have diaspora communities from across the world living in the UK. This is why it is not surprising that the UK is a destination of choice, not only for those who benefit our country but for many who wish to benefit themselves. We have many fantastic world-class universities drawing students to our shores but, sadly, not everyone who says they are here to study intends to do so. The National Audit Office reported that up to 50,000 students may have come to work, not to study, in 2009-10. Back then, student visa extensions were running at over 100,000 per year, with some serial students renewing their leave repeatedly for many years. So, while many have reminded me that student numbers are now down, we must remember why. The “Panorama” documentary broadcast—which, of course, none of us has been able to see, but about which we have heard much—would appear to have highlighted further abuses in the mainstream student route, rather than the student visitor route, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested. If the student route is indeed so abused, that should remind us why we need to be cautious in considering suggestions that students should be excluded from the net migration target.

The UK has a great offer to attract the best international students. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, this is principally because of the quality of the education that is offered here. Those with the right qualifications, sufficient funds to cover their fees and maintenance costs and a good level of English can study here. There is no limit on numbers. Visa applications from students sponsored by universities increased by 7% for the year ending September 2013. I accept the fact highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, that the number of first-year Indian students in our universities declined slightly in 2012-13, but that followed a period of soaring numbers. The number of Indian students admitted to the UK doubled between 2008 and 2009. There may also be other factors at play; for example, the other day in Grand Committee the noble Lord himself mentioned the decline of the strength of the rupee. Further, in December 2013, the British Council published a survey of more than 10,000 young people across India. High-quality courses and institutions remain by far the greatest pull factor for students when choosing whether to study at home or abroad and—this is the most important thing—the UK was the most favoured destination and was chosen by 21% of the respondents.

The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, whose expertise in and knowledge of the university sector I recognise, reminded us that the UK is the second most popular destination globally for international students. We are conscious of this and of the need to continue to make the UK attractive. The Bill does not undermine that. While numbers from India are down, by contrast there was strong growth from China, where numbers were up 6%, Malaysia, where they were up by 3%, and Hong Kong, where they were up by 15%, which shows that there is nothing intrinsically wrong in policy terms that is putting off high-quality students.

There have been suggestions from many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and other noble Lords, including, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with whom I have debated this issue before, that there should be exemptions from the health charge for students on the basis of the contribution they already make to the UK. My noble friend Lady Barker challenged the evidence base, but the Department of Health has estimated that the cost to the NHS of temporary migrants is about £900 million, and students would be responsible for a significant proportion of that. I accept that they are young and fit, but they still need medical treatment.

Not only should students make a contribution to what they take, but we are not alone in requiring a contribution. A student applying to Harvard in the USA would in most cases be required to pay a fee of $958 per year to access basic health services. To access Harvard’s more comprehensive health insurance plan would cost a further $2,190 per year. In contrast, it would cost a foreign student applying to study in the UK around £450 for three years of NHS coverage under these proposals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said the money would go into the Consolidated Fund rather than the NHS. It does say that in the Bill but Clause 33 allows the sums collected to be applied in a way specified by order and—to reassure noble Lords on this point—on 20 January the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed to departments and the devolved Administrations that the money that is collected by these charges—£200 in the main and £150 for students—will go directly to health services.

My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby cautioned us about charging for treatment and warned about its consequences. Indeed, a number of organisations have submitted their views on this issue. I hope noble Lords will allow me to respond to them in the commentary that I am sending.

I now turn to the question of housing and the point made by many noble Lords about the proposals relating to landlords. Students have nothing to fear from the landlord proposals. They have passports with visas which are easy for landlords to check. Landlords are used to managing lettings to students who have yet to arrive in the UK, and the regulations will not impede these arrangements continuing.

Noble Lords will have received a fairly thick, chunky, briefing document. I know it is rather late, but at least we have got it before Second Reading. We did not know who would be speaking at Second Reading. I recommend that noble Lords read it. There is a lot of detail in there for noble Lords.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. Could he just comment on the fact that visas are quite often not available at a very late point? Indeed, some students suddenly find that, having arranged to come to this country, they cannot do so, because the visas are held up, or in some cases, withdrawn. Can he say how the Home Office can avoid that situation, which creates a great deal of tension and strain?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that issue. I cannot respond to it immediately, because I do not want to give a meaningless response, but I hope she will allow me to come back to her on that so we can have the full picture before Committee. I was just making a general point that students, perhaps, have less anxiety in this area, because of the nature of the visas that they have coming here.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, whose expertise in these matters I recognise, and my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, asked about the complexity of checks landlords will be required to conduct. The landlord check is undoubtedly simpler than that which employers must conduct. There are fewer technicalities, and with all migrants now being issued biometric visas, or biometric residents’ permits, the documentation is becoming much easier to manage.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick and Lady Lister, the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Hylton, and my noble friend Lord Roberts all raised how the Bill will impact on children. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 places a duty on the Secretary of State to safeguard and promote the welfare or best interest of children in the UK; Clause 14 of the Bill makes specific provision for it when the best interests of the child mean that the public interest does not require removal. The Bill does not change or undermine the Section 55 duty, which requires the Home Office to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK. The children duty continues to apply to all cases involving children in the UK. I hope that reassures noble Lords. Children in care are not subject to the NHS treatment charges. The Bill does not change that, and there will be an exemption from the surcharge for these children and other vulnerable groups. I will be providing more detail on the exemptions in time for consideration in Committee.

We will also address some other notions about access to childhood immunisation and other public health issues. I want to reassure noble Lords on that point, and I am sure I will be able to do so.

On the appeals measures in the Bill, we want to see faster, better decisions being made in the first place by the Home Office. All noble Lords would agree that that is a desirable outcome. The Home Secretary has made great strides in this area with her reform of the former UK Border Agency. The customer service that applicants receive has improved, and is improving further. We are not complacent, but the administrative review approach to be introduced is not novel; it is used for overseas visa applications, for example. Last year, 20% of requests resulted in the reversal of the original decision, so it does work. There is a proper scrutiny of the process, and 90% of requests were dealt with in less than 28 days.

[Lord Avebury]

My Lords, does the Minister realise that the figure he has just given is a cause of worry—that 20% of visa applications from overseas were found to have been successful by the administrative review process that now takes place, but formerly, when they had the right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, 36% of them were successful? Something is wrong with the figures there.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not think that there is, my Lords. My noble friend misunderstands the degree to which the appeal process has tended to be used to consider new evidence and new material that has been produced by applicants, which could be dealt with through an administrative process much more efficiently that would avoid the late delivery of papers and documentation, which has complicated many cases and prolonged their proper consideration.

The courts will still play an important role in cases that engage fundamental rights. I assure noble Lords on that. However, if an applicant does not qualify and their application is refused, an appeal should not be a way of prolonging their stay in the United Kingdom for months and, as noble Lords will know, in some cases for years. Many noble Lords have cited statistics on allowed appeals. My noble friend Lord Avebury did so, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lady Manzoor, who cited that as evidence of poor decision-making on the part of the Home Office. We believe that just over half the appeals are allowed because of casework error, and administrative review will resolve that. After casework errors, most appeals succeed on Article 8 grounds. When someone believes that they should be allowed to stay in the UK on human rights grounds, they should make a claim on that basis to the Secretary of State. Refusal of that claim will give a right of appeal protected by this Bill. We also need to keep the appeal statistics in perspective. Some 89% of applications from students and workers seeking to extend their stay in 2012 were granted rather than refused.

The evil of statelessness is well understood and that is why, in the shadow of the two world wars of the 20th century, so much work was done to reduce it. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, made that clear. We have heard impassioned contributions from her as well as from the noble Lords, Lord Ahmed and Lord Rosser, on that subject. The proposal in the Bill on deprivation of citizenship is an important measure, one that we anticipate will be used in very few cases but which we consider to be necessary to protect the vital interests of the United Kingdom. The measure is very tightly drafted; it falls within the scope of our declaration under the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and goes no further. Where the power will be used is in the anticipation that the majority of persons concerned can acquire another nationality. The Bill will return our legislation in this area to the position that the United Kingdom held as recently as 2003. There are safeguards, and I know these will be further examined by the House in due course.

[Lord Dubs]

The Minister said “the majority”, but what about the others? It means that some will miss out on this, does it not?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that we can take it that we will discuss this matter in some detail in Committee. The views expressed in Second Reading here this evening have given us at least the scope of the measure. Our assessment is that this is likely to be very rarely used, but it is for situations which present a threat to the vital interests of the country. I think that people might want the Government to be in a position to exercise that, which is why the proposal is in the Bill. But let us discuss it. As ever, when the noble Lord debates issues he makes a good point, and I shall seek to satisfy him before we get into Committee.

If I may say so, I am looking forward to debating this Bill, which is an important part of the coalition’s legislative agenda. I welcome the engagement that we have already had on the Bill, and I think that we have established, even in this Second Reading debate, a sense of dialogue that I hope we will be able to continue. I should like to think that we will have a number of meetings before we meet again in Committee, and I look forward to continuing these discussions. In the mean time, I commend the Bill to the House and ask it to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 10.41 pm.