House of Commons
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
1. If he will undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the effects of the Government’s welfare reforms on sick and disabled people.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
The Treasury regularly produces analysis of the cumulative effects of the coalition’s changes, including to welfare, but even the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that there are no real results that can be broken down and are reliable enough to show the effect on disabled people.
Stephen Twigg
My constituents Natasha Wilson and Katie Lyson are young women with cancer. With support from CLIC Sargent, they applied for personal independence payments seven months ago. Last week, Natasha finally got her money, but Katie is still waiting. Does the Minister agree that a seven-month wait for payment for a young cancer patient is simply unacceptable? Will he look into Katie’s case as a matter of urgency?
Mike Penning
I fully agree that that length of wait is unacceptable, and I have been working on this with the two suppliers since I came into office, as did my predecessor. I will personally look into the case and if those involved would like to come to see me, I would be more than happy to meet them.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that although we must always be sensitive in our handling of cases involving the disabled, many people who are extremely disabled welcome the opportunity to be encouraged on pathways to work? The fact that all of us know severely disabled people who work suggests that the broad thrust of Government policy is going in the right direction.
Mike Penning
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Interestingly, about 70% of people on the previous benefit, the disability living allowance, were put on it for life. They were, in effect, written off, and this Government will not do that.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
A constituent of mine, aged 52, had worked all her life despite having congenital bone disease, until her condition worsened last year. She has to go into hospital next week to have both hips replaced, just at the time that Jobcentre Plus has declared her fit for work and stopped her benefit. When will the Minister ensure that people with disabilities get adequate support and are not treated in this completely harsh and cruel way?
Mike Penning
Assessments were brought in by the previous Administration—admittedly, in relation to the work capability assessment. So assessments are nothing new for this Administration, because the previous Administration introduced them. They did not do that very well, but we agree with assessments. Of course if someone is unfit for work, they can have a sick note put in while they are waiting for an appeal to go through—should that happen—and they will be entitled to jobseeker’s allowance. I completely agree that anyone who has gone into hospital cannot be fit for work at that time, but let us hope that the hon. Lady’s constituent is fit and well soon, and can return to work.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the emphasis on continuous improvement in the Litchfield and Harrington reviews shows that any cumulative assessment is either impossible or meaningless? Is it not better to rely on the robust statistics on fulfilling potential as the measure of whether the Government’s policy is being successful in this field?
Mike Penning
I completely agree with what my hon. Friend says, and that is exactly what our plans are; that is what we want to try to do, and I look forward to working with him on this project.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
How can the Government justify removing all phone lines to local jobcentres such as the one in Neath? How are people, especially disabled and sick people, supposed to cope with the fiendishly complex benefits system, or get into jobs, without personalised help and advice? Does the Minister not understand that the most vulnerable people often cannot get online, afford costly daily travel to jobcentres or hang on for ages on expensive 0845 lines?
Mike Penning
The 0845 numbers came in when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, and we are eradicating them now. Advisers are in place all the time. Most work is done online these days, but the advisers are there to help people, which is why we have been so successful in getting people into work.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
Last Saturday, a constituent told me that her husband has throat cancer and is able to breathe only as a result of a laryngectomy and nebuliser treatment. He was found fit to work by Atos and is concerned about the six-week reassessment of what seems to be an inexplicable decision. Will the Minister assure me that there is a direction to improve and get people’s acts together as well as to make the appeals process quicker?
Mike Penning
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue with me before we came into Question Time. This looks like a case where something should be done. I will wait for the medical professionals to do this; it is a paper-based assessment, not a face-to-face one. I will look into it and come back to my hon. Friend as soon as I can.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
While the UK Government have resisted calls for a cumulative impact assessment of their welfare reforms, the Scottish Government have undertaken such an assessment. It showed that, overwhelmingly, the £4.5 billion-worth of cuts are falling on disabled people and mothers. Does the Minister accept that the reason he will not carry out such an assessment is because he is scared that it will expose his Government’s priorities and their willingness to punish the poor?
Mike Penning
Although I respect what the Scottish Government do, our own Treasury and our own independent forecasts are saying that it is not possible to do that accurately. What I can say to the hon. Lady is that in every year of this coalition Government funding for disabled benefits has gone up, and it will continue to go up through 2015-16—more than was left by the previous Administration.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
2. What recent progress his Department has made on reducing youth unemployment.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
The Government’s approach is working. For the 20th consecutive month, we have seen the youth claimant count reduce, so it is down on the month, down on the year and down since the election.
Mr Robertson
It is very good news that young people are finding work, but there are still far too many out of work. None the less, engineering and manufacturing companies in my constituency cannot find young people to employ. What discussions is the Minister’s Department having with Jobcentre Plus and with its colleagues in the Department for Education about giving young people the right kind of career advice?
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend does a lot in his constituency of Tewkesbury with engineering and manufacturing companies. I know that he regards it as vital that more people are involved in manufacturing and science, and that is a view that we all share, which is why we are doing more on apprenticeships—half a million this year—and on advanced apprenticeships. We have also brought together the youth action groups, so the Minister for Civil Society can now lead the way for all Departments and the voluntary and charity sector to work together.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Minister reels off statistics, but will she help me communicate with young people in Merseyside? What are they supposed to think when they see the figures in the Liverpool Echo today that show that more people have been sanctioned in Merseyside than have found work through her Work programme? What are young people supposed to think?
Esther McVey
I do a lot on Merseyside—whether it is with the Merseyside youth entrepreneurship scheme or with young kids and helping to provide them with role models. Supporting people on Merseyside has shaped my career for the past 15 years. Indeed, I grew up there during the 1980s. What we are doing should be looked at in its entirety. We cannot look at sanctions in isolation. This is about the claimant commitment, the extra traineeships since 2011—more than half a million—and the extra apprenticeships. We are doing a lot. I am focusing on youth unemployment. It is going in the right direction, but there is still plenty more work to be done.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
3. What timetable his Department is working to for the retendering of contracts to deliver work capability assessments; what progress has been made with such retendering; and if he will make a statement.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
4. When he next expects to meet representatives of Atos to discuss its work for his Department.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
Although we have seen some improvements in Atos quality, we are still in ongoing commercial discussions. Unlike Atos, we respect the commercial confidentiality of those discussions. It is important to get the procurement right. The previous Administration did not share that view, which is why we are in this mess today.
Anne Marie Morris
Will the Minister inform the House of what steps he is taking to address the significant backlog that has been created by the delays in claimants receiving their work capability assessments? In my constituency, individuals say that they have been waiting for up to six months, which has a real impact on their financial circumstances.
Mike Penning
The issues to do with the work capability assessment and the unacceptable backlog that Atos has built up over the years are due to capacity and quality. The quality, which was very poor earlier on, has been improved. That means that there is now a huge backlog, which is why we are currently in negotiations with Atos.
Mr Bellingham
Given that Atos has now announced that it wants to withdraw from the contract that was negotiated with Labour, does the Minister agree that it would be an absolute disgrace if the hard-pressed taxpayer had to pay any form of compensation to the company?
Mike Penning
Since we came into power, we have been warning Atos of the need to improve its service. We are seeking agreements with it to ensure that that is done, some of which have not come to fruition. If we terminate the contract today, as the Opposition have suggested, the financial consequences would fall on the taxpayer and not on Atos, which would be absolutely wrong and something that I will not accept.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
I am not sure whether the Secretary of State is glad that he is here rather than in my area where there is a clash of the Cabinets. At least, he has managed to avoid the travel chaos.
Atos has acted as a lightning rod for all that is wrong with the work capability assessment. However, it is delivering a Government contract to Government specifications. What guarantee has the Minister got that any new contract will recognise the problems and the flaws of the system and the sheer misery that Atos has caused in delivering its contracts to ensure that they are not repeated?
Mike Penning
That is why we have had five reviews and the rolling reviews continue to take place, and we must learn from the mistakes of the previous Administration, who awarded this contract to Atos—something that they cannot run away from, although they seem to want to do so.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Now that the Minister has admitted that Atos is in a mess, notwithstanding when that began, will he give a guarantee that there cannot be a test for fitness for work if no one there has medical experience?
Mike Penning
All the assessors have medical experience and are clinicians, but the hon. Gentleman cannot run away from the previous Administration, as he loves to try to do, although he was elected on a manifesto with WCA.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It is no surprise to many that Atos, appointed by the last Labour Government, has now failed its own work capability assessment. Considering that appeals have been upheld for 40% of the original decisions, what can be done to ensure that original decisions are far more accurate and right much more of the time?
Mike Penning
We are driving many of the improvements through, and I have actually instigated measures to ensure that we look carefully at what goes to tribunal, because some of the cases should not have gone there. That is why I have instigated the review that is taking place at the moment.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure that the Minister will not need reminding that, in fact, his Government extended the contract with Atos and rolled out the move from incapacity benefit, without taking account of the issues that arose in the pilot studies early in his Government’s term in office. Now that Atos has accepted that it cannot deliver this contract, rather than just retendering it, will the Minister take the opportunity to ensure that it is properly fit for purpose, so that it helps those people who want to and who can get into work, rather than hounding those who cannot?
Mike Penning
That is exactly what we are doing in the negotiations that we have been involved in for several months now. That is why we are in negotiations with Atos about the future and bringing in more capacity. But this mess was created by the Government—previous Government—and that is the problem, and we extended the contract because we had absolutely no choice whatsoever.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Atos claims that one of the reasons for getting out of the contract is that its staff have received death threats. Is the Minister able to verify that, and if so, does he agree that, whatever the problems of Atos and the contract agreed by the last Labour Government, there is never any justification for threats of violence or violence against front-line staff—whether nurses, doctors, teachers or, in this case, Atos staff?
Mike Penning
I would hope that everyone across the House condemns any of the abuse and the threats against the employees of Atos as completely unacceptable, no matter what their view of Atos.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
This Government have had nearly four years to sort this out, and pinning the blame on Atos will not get around that. Why, knowing the weaknesses of that organisation and all the flaws in how it was working, was it awarded a contract to implement the personal independence payment, which is causing huge delays?
Mike Penning
The contract for WCA is completely different from the contract for PIP, with a completely different set of assessments. Four years in, we are still trapped by a contract signed by the previous Administration —something that I intend to get out of, but without penalising the taxpayer.
Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his Department’s work experience programme.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
Tomorrow, we will publish the Youth Contract claimant survey research, which contains a range of information on claimants’ experiences and an analysis of the early impacts. However, the latest figures showed that we previously had 113,000 people who started work experience and that 50% of them got a job; that there were 21,000 wage incentive starts and that 30,000 people went to sector-based work academies.
Mr Amess
Having run an employment agency before becoming a Member of Parliament, I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that, in a tough labour market, work experience provides a useful tool for our young people to gain access to the permanent jobs market. Should we not do everything that we can to enhance the programme?
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend, who has such great knowledge in this area, is spot on. Only this morning, I was with a group of young people from Livity, as well as various large employers—Capgemini, Ernst and Young and Tesco—and they all said that it was vital that they had work experience. They felt that they could not get a job without work experience. We have put that in place, and the more people who get on board and support it, the better.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Work experience can certainly be helpful, but given that the Department has recently published a glowing evaluation of Labour’s future jobs fund, why will the Minister not introduce a jobs guarantee scheme?
Esther McVey
That was certainly a rewrite of history, but Labour is used to doing that. The future jobs fund cost £6,500 per person and had only a 50% success rate, but not in the private sector, because most people did not end up there. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that with the work experience programmes and sector-based work academies we are introducing, we are achieving better success rates at one twentieth of the cost—£325 per person.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
6. What steps he has taken to help those reaching retirement age before the introduction of the single-tier pension.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
For those who will reach pension age before the introduction of the new state pension, we have introduced a new class of national insurance contributions, which will allow those pensioners the opportunity to increase their state pension in retirement. More details of the scheme will be announced later this year.
Lorely Burt
I am grateful for that answer and it is extremely encouraging. Can my hon. Friend the Minister say what the Government have done to ensure that pensioners in my constituency are able to manage the cost of living rises in this Parliament?
Steve Webb
As my hon. Friend knows, the manifesto on which she and I stood proposed a triple lock, which was implemented by this coalition Government. It means that each year the pension will rise by the highest of the growth in average earnings or prices or by 2.5%, so the state pension is now a higher share of national average earnings than at any time in more than 20 years.
Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)
The Minister has today laid before the House a pensions written ministerial statement that intimates that following a year-long Labour campaign the Government intend to ensure that pension fund managers in the City disclose the fees that they charge for trading all of our pension assets. That is welcome, but of course the devil will be in the detail. On that basis, can he confirm today that that disclosure will include the number of times that fund managers churn our pension assets for a fee?
Steve Webb
I know that the Opposition like to bluster a lot to cover their embarrassment at taking no steps at all on this in 13 years in government. By contrast, this week this Government are legislating to shine a light in the murky corners of the pensions industry, so that value for money is finally achieved for pension savers.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
9. How many people have had their benefits reduced to the maximum of £26,000 (a) nationally and (b) on the Isle of Wight to date.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
By December 2013, 36,471 households had been capped nationally. Local figures obviously vary from area to area. The Isle of Wight is an area that does not get capped as much; some 100 households or fewer have been capped so far. These numbers include single households without children, for whom the cap is less than £26,000.
Mr Turner
The average gross wage on the Isle of Wight is just over £18,000, so take-home pay is about £15,000. The benefits cap is £10,000 more than the average islander earns. How can I explain this to islanders? Does the Minister think that I should mention that the Labour party believes that there should be no limit at all on the largesse of taxpayers?
Mr Duncan Smith
Far be it for me to recommend to my hon. Friend what he should mention to his constituents, but he might well start with the fact that this benefits cap was opposed by Labour when we implemented it. His point about the level is simple. We have embedded the cap now, it has been rolled out and we have made sure that it has worked properly. We have seen a huge number of people move back to work; some 19,000 people who were going to be capped have gone to work and thus avoided the cap. So the cap is successful everywhere. However, we should remember that there are differences in income and in London a lower cap would be a rather severe penalty to put on people. Therefore, although I keep the cap under review, I have no plans at the moment to change its level.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) clearly wants the cap to be reduced in his area and the Secretary of State makes an important point about London. Does that not suggest that there is some argument for taking into account regional variations in costs, so that the cap reflects what is happening locally?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am intrigued and pleased that the hon. Gentleman says that he supports the principle of the cap, which is more—in essence—than the Opposition have ever done in any vote. They voted against the cap—just in case they have forgotten. My point to him is a viable one. The trouble is where should regional calculations be made? Cities in regions have different levels of income from some of the countryside, so it starts to become quite a complicated process. Of course, I am willing to discuss this issue with the hon. Gentleman and anybody else who thinks that they have a plan, and I will certainly look at that, but right now the cap is successful, the majority of the public think it is a good idea and it was only his Front-Bench team who decided to vote against it.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State think it appropriate to consider putting a cap on the amount of housing benefit that landlords can receive? Can we at the very least have some transparency, so that we can see how many people who support the Tory party rake in hundreds of thousands of pounds in benefits?
Mr Duncan Smith
I do not know if it is now Labour policy to cap landlords in that way; I suspect that the immediate effect would be fewer landlords making properties available. It seems to me that that would be a complicated, tortuous and pointless policy. However, I think there is plenty of transparency; some of the papers seem to have found out the facts for themselves.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
10. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of councils’ use of discretionary housing payments in this financial year.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
Details of how local authorities used discretionary housing payments in the first half of this year were published on 20 December. That report gives an early indication of how that funding is supporting people, including disabled people living in specially adapted accommodation, and of the type of choices that people are making in response to the changes, such as seeking to move to alternative accommodation or looking for work.
Annette Brooke
Does the Minister agree that councils should use all available funds provided by his Department to offset the ending of the spare room subsidy for those who are disabled and have a clear need for two bedrooms or more, and those who cannot find smaller accommodation? Will the underspending this year affect next year’s allocation?
Steve Webb
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the funding being made available to local authorities for cases where it would be inappropriate for individuals to make up the shortfall should be spent. In addition, this Government have made available an extra £20 million, in-year, but less than a quarter of local authorities bid for that money. We want local authorities to spend the money being made available, so that those who can move do so, but those for whom that would be inappropriate have the top-up that they need.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
One of the worst cases that I have dealt with recently was of a homeless mother with a severely disabled child who receives disability living allowance. That allowance was taken into account in deciding their discretionary housing payment, which left the family with virtually nothing to live on. Will the Minister issue guidance to local authorities saying that they should not take into account disability living allowance when making DHP payments?
Steve Webb
The hon. Lady is very knowledgeable about these matters, and she will know that local authorities make their decisions on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, they do not have to include income from DLA, but they are free to do so. If she believes that her local authority should not have done so in an individual case, she should make representations to it.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Following on from that question, the Minister must know that in assessing entitlement to income-related benefits, entitlement to disability benefits is not taken into account. The one exception to that policy is discretionary housing payments. It is specifically in the guidance that local authorities can take them into account and means-test them in the way that he described. Will he change and reissue the guidance, so that this one area where disability payments are means-tested is removed from the scene?
Steve Webb
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the key is in the word “discretionary”. Local authorities can ignore DLA if they think that that is appropriate, but they have the freedom to judge on a case-by-base basis; that seems to be the right way to respond to individual need.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
11. What progress he has made on implementation of the pot-follows-member model of automatic pension transfers.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I can announce that we have been working closely with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to examine the feasibility of using the pay-as-you-earn data and system to deliver a secure, efficient and straightforward pot-matching element to the pot-follows-member system. A pot-follows-member system leads to more efficiency, potentially better member engagement, greater consolidation and better outcomes in retirement.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer, but as we are all living longer, which is great news, it is an ever greater priority to ensure that people save for their retirement. Is he looking at options such as the auto-enrolment system in place in Australia? Will he also consider a savings and retirement account for future pensioners?
Steve Webb
My hon. Friend will know that our auto-enrolment programme, which we are in the middle of rolling out, has been highly successful, with nine out of 10 people choosing to stay in that programme. The Australian version is compulsory; we have chosen not to do that in this country. The fact that most people are choosing voluntarily to stay in pensions saving is a judgment that we have made the right choice. I should add that the Australians have said that they wish that they had introduced from the beginning the pot-follows-member system that we are introducing.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
The pensions Minister is consulting on a charges cap. For the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm to the House that he still plans to introduce the cap during the lifetime of this Parliament?
Steve Webb
I refer my hon. Friend to the written statement that we issued today, which confirms precisely that we will shortly bring forth our announcement, and that we will see through our agenda during the course of this Parliament.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
12. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the implementation of personal independence payments.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
Personal independence payments were only introduced nationally for new claims in June 2013, and reassessment of existing disability living allowance claimants is being gradually implemented from October 2013, so we are at an early stage. However, the process is taking too long—I accept that—and, working with officials, I am pushing through an agenda to change that.
Jessica Morden
Newport citizens advice bureau has assisted many clients with applications for PIPs, and has reported that most decisions take about five months, but some people have been waiting for a decision since July. There are serious delays at both the DWP and the Capita end, although we were assured by previous Ministers that the PIP process would be fit for purpose. Does the Minister accept the stress and hardship that that causes vulnerable people, and why has it taken Ministers so long to get to grips with the problem?
Mike Penning
The reason we are phasing the measure in is to make sure that we get it right. There are internal DWP processes that are taking too long. The assessment is taking too long, and it is also the case that some claimants are taking too long to return the forms that have been sent to them. We are working on this with both providers, and we will get there.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Under the current DLA system, it is hard for people with severe mental health conditions to get the higher-rate amount, but will that change when PIP is implemented?
Mike Penning
We often hear about the negative side of PIP, and we have heard again from the Opposition today about their opposition to some parts of it, but there is a great success story for people with mental health issues. Under the old DLA system, they would not be able to get the higher rate that they will receive under PIP, which should be welcomed across the House.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last year, there were 229,700 claims for PIP, but decisions were taken on only 43,800—fewer than one in five. How can it be right to take up to six months to reach a decision of such significance for severely disabled people? Has the Minister actually set a target for timely decisions, and what penalties will he impose on the assessors—Capita and Atos—for failing to meet it?
Mike Penning
It is always difficult to ask a question that has been written before hearing the previous answers. We accept that there are delays: we accept that within PIP, and we accept that within Atos and Capita. We are working closely with them to deal with that. Under the previous system, less than 6% of people ever had a face-to-face assessment; now it is 97%, which we should welcome. We need to get that down so that we can address paper claims quicker, particularly in cases of terminal illness, which we are working on. However, we must push this forward.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
It cannot be too early for my constituents who have experienced waits of between five and six months to get an assessment after they have submitted their PIP claim, and others have been told by service providers to expect to wait up to three months to get a decision after the assessment. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to make sure that service providers face consequences if they do not improve those times?
Mike Penning
There are contractual requirements on both providers, and if they do not meet them they will be penalised financially. I also have to say that there are internal delays in DWP, so I am not going to pass the buck entirely on to them, but we will address the problem, and we are doing so. There are measures that we introduced last week which I hope will address the situation with an accumulative effect.
Mr Speaker
Question 13 is a good idea. The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, and probably not for the last, is ahead of himself.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
13. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of Capita in relation to personal independence payment assessments.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
Latest analysis is telling us that the end-to-end claimant journey is taking longer, as I said previously, than expected with both providers—Capita and Atos. As I previously stated, we are taking urgent action on this.
Kevin Brennan
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for not allowing me to get ahead of myself earlier.
It is taking months and months for constituents to get these assessments done, and the issue is clogging up a lot of our surgeries as a result of those delays. In his answer to the previous question, the Minister said that claimants were to blame. How much of the problem is he saying is caused by claimants, because I can assure him that, in the case of my constituents, that is not the problem?
Mike Penning
As we bed down the new benefit and the new policies, there will be issues within the Department, issues with the contractors and issues not only with people giving advice to claimants, but with claimants themselves. I am not blaming claimants. What we are saying is that there are delays in the forms coming back and delays because they are not filled in correctly. That is something that we need to work on. We need to be more informative about how those forms are to be filled in, and we are working on that. On the terminal illness side, we are working with Macmillan so that it works closely with those claimants.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
My constituent Pamela Brown applied for her personal independence payment in July last year, but the persistent failures by Capita meant that she faced a delay of more than three months just to get an assessment. She had numerous appointments that were cancelled and Capita did not even tell her. It was only after she put in numerous formal complaints that Capita addressed the matter. Pamela’s case is clearly far from unique, so can the Minister say a little more about what he is doing to sort out the mess at Capita’s end?
Mike Penning
I get people coming to see me at my surgery about exactly the same situation, but the vast majority of assessments are going through and we are trying very hard. We must make sure we get it right. There were issues of quality, which caused the delays, and we are addressing those. That is why the benefit is being phased in, and as we go through we will get a better result for our constituents across the House.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
14. How many people are currently claiming universal credit.
Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)
18. What recent progress his Department has made on the roll-out of universal credit.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Since October, universal credit has started running in Hammersmith, Rugby and Inverness and it is rolling out today in Harrogate and Bath. It is already out in a number of other centres up in the north-west. Based on caseload projections, some 6,000-plus people are likely to be paid universal credit in the pathfinder. That will be subject to confirmation in the official statistics. Many more claim jobseeker’s allowance using the key elements of universal credit, which are also being rolled out to a wider audience. Some 270,000 jobseekers are now using elements such as the claimant commitment, which is part of universal credit.
Nick Smith
Well, the Secretary of State is certainly going faster than universal credit.
Under the Government’s original timetable 1 million people would be receiving universal credit by April this year. When does the Secretary of State now expect this 1 million target to be met?
Mr Duncan Smith
I have said constantly and I continue to say that we will not be giving out targets for dates. As I said earlier, roll-out has begun. I invite the hon. Gentleman to go to any one of the centres and talk to the staff there and to the claimants. He will find that what is happening is a real improvement in their seeking work and getting work, and in the advisers being able to apply themselves to those with the greatest difficulty. Universal credit will have rolled through by 2016, as I said, with all those benefits merged into one, and people will be claiming universal credit, not any other benefit.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady’s question has been grouped with 14 and therefore she asks her question now.
Mr Speaker
It is always useful to have a bit of information, and I endeavour to be helpful to Members. The hon. Lady need not sound quite so surprised.
Laura Sandys
I am a strong believer in behavioural change, and my behaviour will change shortly—but just before it does, what assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the behavioural change that is happening as a result of the introduction of universal credit?
Mr Duncan Smith
I say to my hon. and highly informed Friend that it is important for us to understand what this is all about. Colleagues on either side of the House should attend centres where universal credit has been rolled out. They will hear from the advisers that we are beginning to see a real change in culture among those who are claiming benefit and those who are delivering it. All the centres that I have visited believe that this is improving the situation for claimants, and it makes life a lot easier and a lot more efficient for advisers in jobcentres.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Would that the Secretary of State were as informative as the Speaker. The answer to the question on the Order Paper—in other words, how many people are on universal credit—is 3,200. Bearing in mind that so far universal credit has cost £612 million, that is £191,250 per person, which does not compare very well with the £6,500 per person that was mentioned for the future jobs fund. It seems that the Prime Minister was right when it comes to Government pet projects: money is no object. When will the Secretary of State allow the Opposition direct access to his officials so that we can sort out his mess?
Mr Duncan Smith
I rather hope that at some point the hon. Gentleman had a maths O-level, because his maths is so pathetic as to make it risible. He has all the numbers and all the amounts that are relevant to the development of all the equipment that will roll out the complete universal credit. [Interruption.] I am going to answer this question. In truth, the operational running costs of the pathfinder, which is what we are running at the moment, are some £6 million, which equates to £200 per claim. By the way, he needs a little correction. In case he had not noticed, we have already invited him and all his colleagues to come and visit us. I think they are down to visit us this week, so he needs to check his diary, or maybe his colleagues did not want him to come with them. I do not know.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
15. What assessment he has made of the effects of the migration of claimants from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
At March 2013, as a result of incapacity benefit reassessment, over 650,000 people have been reassessed and are now either preparing or looking for work.
Graeme Morrice
Is the Minister aware that between October 2012 and September 2013, using his own Department’s figures, the ESA participant group performance was 6.6% against the DWP minimum target of 16.5%? Will he now accept that the Government’s Work programme experiment has been a complete waste of time and money, and will they now scrap it?
Mike Penning
No, we will not, because we are already two thirds of the way through the incapacity benefit reassessment process. We have 1 million people in the process and, as I said earlier, 650,000 have already progressed through.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I am very pleased that the employment rate for disabled people has now reached 45%. Does my hon. Friend agree that that shows that, with the right support, disabled people can find and keep work and provide for their own families?
Mike Penning
I welcome the fact that it is now 45%, but we can do better, and we need to do better for those disabled people who want to get back into the workplace. That is why Disability Confident is going around the country showing employers how easy and right it is that they employ people with long-term illness and disabilities, and that has been very successful.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
16. What assessment he has made of trends in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Bury North constituency.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
The number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance in Bury North has fallen by 17% over the last year and the number of long-term young claimants has fallen by a third.
Mr Nuttall
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming the good news that hundreds more young people in my constituency now have the security of a regular pay packet. Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether that encouraging trend is also reflected in the other age groups and categories of unemployed in Bury North?
Esther McVey
I can indeed answer that question from my hon. Friend, who is a particularly active local MP and holds us all to account thoroughly in his constituency. The claimant count is down 17% across the board in his constituency, and nationally we have got record numbers of people into work—more than 30 million—and we have got a record number of women into work, and at a record rate. That really does show that the Government’s long-term plan is working.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
17. What recent assessment he has made of the extent of abuse of zero-hours contracts in back-to-work schemes.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Under the Work programme, providers are paid for getting people into sustained work, generally a job of at least 16 hours a week, paid at the national minimum wage or more, and which lasts for a minimum of six months. That can be two or three jobs, but none the less, they have to last for six months.
Outcomes are counted on that basis, therefore DWP does not hold information about the employment contract itself. Moving someone on to a zero-hours contract would not count as a job outcome unless it entailed meaningful work that was registered, taking them off benefits.
Chi Onwurah
My constituent was taken on by a security company on a zero-hours contract with a promise of 40 hours a week, but he has been given only 17 hours, while the company takes on more staff from the Work programme with more promises of proper hours. He cannot pay his rent, he cannot sign on because he would be considered to have made himself unemployed, he cannot plan and he cannot live. When will the Secretary of State end this abuse of zero-hours contracts?
Mr Duncan Smith
As I understand it from what the hon. Lady said, her constituent was not taken on under the Work programme, but others in the Work programme were, which was causing him the problem. If she wants to give me the full details of the case I will look at it, because that is slightly different from what I understood her question to be about. If there is an abuse among the Work programme providers in this regard, I will certainly deal with it.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State look at those vacancies, particularly in the Ryedale jobcentre, that are the most difficult to fill, which tend to be in the care sector? Will he also look at any abuse of zero-hours contracts in the employment of carers, whether under the Work programme or any other long-term sustainable work?
Mr Duncan Smith
First, may I say how pleased I am to see my hon. Friend in her place? It is my personal hope that she remains there and returns to the House again, because she gets great coverage for her constituents. The issue she raises is an important one, but we need to get the right balance between what zero-hours contracts deliver and any abuses there might be. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is carrying out a consultation, and we are fully co-operating in that and will ensure that such contracts do not cause problems in the Work programme. However, it is worth remembering that those contracts also provide people with a flexible way of working and the freedom to arrange jobs around other commitments, and they allow employers to be competitive in response to market trends. I therefore think that we must get the balance right with zero-hours contracts and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We must recognise that for many people they are positive and helpful, but we also want to end any abuses there might be for others.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
19. What plans he has to meet representatives of the Trussell Trust.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Although food banks are not a Department for Work and Pensions or Government responsibility, Department representatives and Ministers—myself included—have on occasion had cause to meet representatives of food banks, including the Trussell Trust.
Susan Elan Jones
A decade ago at Easterhouse the Secretary of State said how important small, grass-roots community organisations are. If he really believes what he said then, when he spoke the rhetoric of broken Britain, is not it time he set a date, met the representatives and listened to what they have to say about food poverty in the United Kingdom?
Mr Duncan Smith
I have two points for the hon. Lady. First, I have just said that all of us have at some point met representatives of the Trussell Trust. Secondly, I absolutely think that those involved in food banks and in supporting those who are in difficulty or in need are very valuable members of the community, and I celebrate the work they do. I believe that it is the right thing for them to do. I think that all those involved in food banks are decent people trying to do a decent bit of work for those in need of help, and we support that in general terms as constituency MPs. However, I must say that the over-politicisation of this issue has done no help at all, as some leaders of food banks have attested over the past week.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Trussell Trust has been exposing the real impact of Ministers’ policies, so out of pique they have refused to meet the trust’s representatives since last summer. Now that they have been overruled by the Prime Minister, who met trust representatives last week, will DWP Ministers at last step up to their responsibilities? Was not the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster absolutely right when he said last week that
“there shouldn’t be people living with nothing, in destitution, in a country which is as prosperous as this”?
Mr Duncan Smith
I have two points for the right hon. Gentleman. First, he, his party and others have deliberately set out to politicise the issue of food banks—[Interruption.] Well, those are not my words. The person who runs the Oxford food bank has said:
“I think this whole debate has become hopelessly politicised.”
Food banks do a good service, but they have been much in the news. People know they are free. They know about them and they will ask social workers to refer them. It would be wrong to pretend that the mass of publicity has not also been a driver in their increased use. The Opposition, notwithstanding the fact that under them the number of food banks increased tenfold, are trying to make a political issue out of this. They have done no service to those who need help and support and no service to those who run the food banks.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)
Today I welcome the latest statistics showing the growth in employment over the past year. Against a rise of 54,000 foreign nationals at work, 360,000 more UK nationals are employed, a far better record than under the previous Government. With new measures to tighten up on immigration still further, such as the minimum earnings threshold announced last week, we are ensuring that those who want to work and who will work hard and play by the rules will see the benefits of Britain’s growth.
Steve Baker
The bishops have said that there is an “acute moral imperative” to act on welfare, and I agree, because that has been clear since at least 2006, when the Centre for Social Justice published its report, “Breakdown Britain”. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is still on a moral mission to break those cycles of deprivation that lead to entrenched poverty so that people can live lives of hope and fulfilment?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am determined, as I have been since I arrived as Secretary of State, to improve the welfare system so that it supports people back into positive lifestyles, and that is what we are doing. More people have moved from economic inactivity, which is now at its lowest levels, back into work. There are now fewer workless households than there were on our arrival. When we came into government, one in 20—a fifth—of all households were without work; that figure has now reduced for the first time in 30 years.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
On 13 January, the Secretary of State told this House that between 3,000 and 5,000 people were wrongly paying the bedroom tax because of a loophole in the legislation. Since then, councils have been trawling through years of records to find out who has been overpaid. Will the Secretary of State update us on how many people were wrongly paying the bedroom tax?
Mr Duncan Smith
On the loophole that I talked about when I made that comment, the estimate we had, which was drawn from local authorities and still stands, in our view, was that some 5,000 people may be affected. That is based on the most up-to-date data that local authorities have given. I know that the hon. Lady and her team have made a freedom of information request, but the key thing is that the information we have is based on all the local authorities’ evidence to us, and I do not believe that her evidence is in any way accurate.
Rachel Reeves
Yes, we have put in a freedom of information request, because we did not think that the Secretary of State’s numbers were correct, and, as it turns out, they are not. The FOI request shows that with 194 out of 346 councils having responded so far, a staggering 21,500 people have been wrongly paying the bedroom tax, including 4,198 in Tory local authorities, so perhaps they have got their numbers wrong too. There are 275 in Tory Chester, 200 in Tory Peterborough, 234—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but the question is too long. I have got Back Benchers to accommodate, so I know that the final sentence, which will be a short one, is on its way.
Rachel Reeves
Instead of trying stealthily to close the loophole, will the Secretary of State now do the right thing and scrap the cruel and hated bedroom tax?
Mr Duncan Smith
Yet again we hear from the hon. Lady a complete failure to mention the fact that in all her Government’s time in power, they did nothing for those who lived in overcrowded accommodation. A quarter of a million people were left to us who suffer every day because they cannot get the right rooms. One million people were left on the waiting list, and the house building programme fell to its lowest point since the 1920s. There is only one answer to her: sorting this out is the right thing to do, and shame on a Government who did nothing for those in greatest difficulty.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
T2. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the fall in unemployment in my constituency over the past three years? We now have about 2,500 more people in work than in 2010, benefiting young and old, those in full-time and part-time positions, and men and women. Does not this highlight how important it is for the Government to stick to their economic plans and ensure that the well-being of this country improves?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
My hon. Friend is right to say that we have got a record number of people into work across the board. What is most interesting as I travel up and down the country is to see how local Jobcentres Plus are working with local businesses to support their local work forces. In particular, the learning shop at Bluewater is doing tremendous work. My hon. Friend is right. We have done a lot; we have more to do.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
T3. A constituent of mine recently had his benefits wrongly withdrawn. He has severe learning difficulties and cannot use the internet independently, and therefore has great difficulty in applying for jobs online. Does the Secretary of State agree that targeted support would be more successful in getting my constituent and others back into work than damaging, wrongly imposed benefit sanctions?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
It is very important that we help everybody to get back into work, no matter who it is. If benefits have been stopped incorrectly, I promise to look into that for the hon. Lady.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
T4. The Minister will be aware of the 16% drop in unemployment in my constituency, along with the 34% drop in youth unemployment. Will he join me in welcoming the support of local businesses at our next annual Enfield jobs fair on 7 March, where employers are coming to support us in helping to find work for the unemployed?
Mr Duncan Smith
I will do everything I can to make sure I am there to support my hon. Friend, who is also my parliamentary neighbour. He is right to say that what we have seen in the recent employment figures has happened only because we stuck to the course of our economic plan and because the welfare reforms are delivering more people into work. All that would be damaged if that lot were in power.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T7. Two of my constituents—both of whom are UK citizens—went to other European Union countries to find work, but when those jobs ended and they came home they found they were no longer eligible to receive benefits in the UK. Did the Government mean to penalise UK citizens who go abroad to get off the UK unemployment register, and is not that exactly the wrong signal to give? Will the Secretary of State change the regulations?
Mr Duncan Smith
As the hon. Gentleman should know, we are bringing forward tougher sanctions on those who come here just to take benefits, rather than to work. Of course, British citizens working abroad are more likely to have gone abroad with a strong work record in the UK, so when they come back that is taken into account. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about a particular case, perhaps he would like to write to me and I will take it up. The sanctions are fair because they stop people coming to countries such as Britain just because they have better welfare systems than theirs.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
T5. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on all the work he has put into getting people back into employment, but I was visited this weekend by one of my constituents, Paul Vachon, who has been unemployed for more than 12 months and is highly skilled. His major concern is that, because he is close to the point of retirement, his employability is diminished. What are the Government doing to encourage and support those such as Paul who are seeking jobs at the point when they are about to retire?
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend raises an important question about how we support all people back into work. It really is important that advisers have the flexibility to offer skills and job-search support to people of all ages, including those who might need extra support on the Work programme and, equally, those in local areas that might have an over-50s digital group or 50-plus work clubs. We need to make sure that everybody is getting the support and I would be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
T8. I have put this question to the Department for Work and Pensions on two previous occasions in the Chamber, but I will try again and perhaps, as the old adage goes, this will be third time lucky. More than 90% of the Work programme participants in my home city of Dundee have not been helped into work by it, so my simple question is: why not?
Esther McVey
The Work programme supports those people who are furthest away from the job market. We have helped more than 1.4 million people and we now know that more than 400,000 of them have had a job start. We have to get them closer to the workplace, so it is working well. We always say that there is more to do, but this has done a significant amount for those people who are the hardest to help.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
T6. Will Ministers do something about the fact that, of all the people being helped with personal independence payment claims by the Berwick citizens advice bureau, not one remaining in the area has received an assessment since the scheme started?
Mike Penning
Of course, as we roll out PIP, this is a really difficult situation and we must make sure we get the quality right. I will look into that individual case for my right hon. Friend and make sure we get it right in his area.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
T9. Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), a number of my constituents have been on the employment and support programme for two years, or nearly two years, and have had not a sniff of a work opportunity. Do the Government have a solution for how to get people with complex needs into work, because clearly the Work programme is not delivering?
Esther McVey
The Work programme is working. For those people who are on employment and support allowance, it is about getting closer to the job market and that is what we are doing—putting provision in place. I remind the hon. Lady that, under her Government, those people were not supported in any consistent way whatsoever.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
T10. One of the issues raised during the last debate before the recess was payment of benefits to terminally ill patients. Will Ministers update the House on what additional help and support is available for recipients of PIP?
Mike Penning
It is very important for the families and loved ones of people who are terminally ill to make sure that we get the PIP payment through as fast as possible. The period was too long; we have got it down now, and we need to get it down more. I said to the Select Committee that the proportion should be below 10%. Working with Macmillan, we are going to a PDF as well as a paper-based system for the 2%, but it is very important that we get that right, and that is why I have changed the rules.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, you will remember that during exchanges at the last Work and Pensions questions, the Secretary of State said that Manchester had spent very little of its discretionary housing allocation. I wonder whether he wants to use this opportunity to clarify that allegation, given that only two days later, his Department granted Manchester city council an extra £200,000 of discretionary housing payment in recognition that its money was nearly spent.
Mr Duncan Smith
I stand by the figures I gave the hon. Lady, and I also stand by the fact that Manchester—[Interruption.] No, the figures I gave her were the halfway cut for the year, when she said that it had already overspent—[Interruption.] No, she cannot run away from it. She said that it had overspent, and the reality is that it had not overspent. Since then, it has asked for more money. We have a pot, and we have allowed it to have more money. That is the point of the discretionary housing payment. Welcome to the world of decision making.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
My constituent Jane has been receiving treatment for cancer since her diagnosis last October, but she was wrongly told that she was excluded from applying for help unless she resigned from her job altogether or became pregnant. Will the Minister meet me to discuss Jane’s suggestions to improve how patients receiving treatment for serious illnesses are referred by the NHS towards help, such as personal independence payment, in the interests of joined-up government?
Mike Penning
There is a very simple answer to the hon. Lady’s question: yes, I will meet her as soon as possible.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Further to all the questions about people who are seriously ill, does the Minister think it right that my constituent, who has a weakened heart, has been told that she will not get the personal independence payment? Surely it is just not right that, to avoid reaching rock bottom, she has to not follow her doctor’s advice not to work, and has to lie about her condition. Surely now is the time to see just how fit for purpose his welfare benefits system is—it is not working.
Mike Penning
Assessment was brought in by the previous Administration. I fully accept that there are such individual cases. If the hon. Lady’s constituent has not got PIP, she is entitled to appeal and go to a tribunal and the higher tribunal, and she can also register for JSA and produce a sicknote. I will look into the individual case if the hon. Lady so wishes.
NEW MEMBER
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ukraine, Syria and Iran
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Ukraine and Syria and on relations with Iran.
Last week, more than 80 people were killed and 600 injured during the worst bloodshed in Ukraine since the fall of communism. It was the culmination of unrest that began in November, when President Yanukovych announced that the Government would not sign an EU association agreement. I know that the House will join me in sending condolences to the families of those who died or were injured.
On Thursday, I attended the emergency meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels, which agreed to sanctions on those who have been responsible for the violence, as well as assistance to promote political dialogue and help for the injured. On Friday, President Yanukovych and the Opposition signed an agreement, supported by the whole European Union. I pay tribute to my French, Polish and German colleagues for their efforts to bring that about.
Events moved rapidly after that, including the departure of President Yanukovych from Kiev and the removal of guards from Government buildings. On Saturday, the Ukrainian Parliament, the Rada, voted to restore the 2004 constitution, to release Yuliya Tymoshenko and to impeach the President. He has said that he will not step down, but it is clear that his authority is no longer widely accepted. A number of members of the previous Government have been dismissed and appointments have been made to a new unity Government. Speaker Turchynov of the Rada has been appointed acting President until early elections take place on 25 May.
Ukraine has a pressing need for constitutional reform, improvements to its political culture, free elections, an end to pervasive corruption and the building of a stable political structure. We look to the new Government to create the conditions for such change in a spirit of reconciliation, while ensuring that there is accountability for human rights violations.
For our part, the international community must work with the new Government to discourage further violence and agree international financial support. Ukraine’s financial situation is very serious and, without outside assistance, may not be sustainable. An economic crisis in Ukraine would be a grave threat to the country’s stability and could have damaging wider consequences. I discussed that work with the German and Polish Foreign Ministers over the weekend and I spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia earlier this afternoon. The Prime Minister has spoken to President Putin, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Tusk, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed Ukraine with G20 Finance Ministers in Australia. Later today, I will go to Washington to discuss this and other issues with Secretary Kerry.
While in Washington, I will hold talks with the International Monetary Fund, which is best placed to provide financial support and technical advice to Ukraine. Such support could be provided quickly once it has been requested by the new Government. It requires a stable and legitimate Government to be in place and for there to be a commitment to the reforms that are necessary to produce economic stability. International financial support cannot be provided without conditions and clarity that it will be put to proper use.
Baroness Ashton is visiting Kiev today and I will visit shortly. Our fundamental interest is democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Ukraine. This is not about a choice for Ukraine between Russia and the EU; it is about setting the country on a democratic path for the future. We want the people of Ukraine to be free to determine their own future, which is what we also seek for the people of Syria.
On Saturday, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 2139 on humanitarian assistance to Syria, which the United Kingdom called for and co-sponsored. It is the first resolution that has been adopted by the Security Council on the humanitarian crisis since the start of the conflict three years ago, and it was agreed unanimously. It demands an immediate end to the violence, the lifting of the sieges of besieged areas, and the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid including, importantly, across borders where necessary. It authorises the UN to work with civil society to deliver aid to the whole of Syria. It condemns terrorist attacks and demands the implementation of the Geneva communiqué, leading to a political transition. It states that that should include the full participation of women.
The passing of the resolution is an important achievement, but it will make a practical difference only if it is implemented in full. We will work with the United Nations and our partners to try to ensure that the regime’s stranglehold on starving people is broken.
The UK continues to set an example to the world on humanitarian assistance. Our contribution to the Syrian people now stands at £600 million: £241 million has been allocated for humanitarian assistance inside Syria; £265 million has been allocated to support refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt; and £94 million of allocations are currently being finalised. We have pressed for other countries to do more, including at the Kuwait conference last month, which resulted in more than $2.2 billion in new pledges.
The Security Council resolution is a chink of light in an otherwise bleak and deteriorating situation. An estimated 5,000 Syrians are dying every month and a quarter of a million remain trapped in areas under siege. The bombardment of civilian areas with barrel bombs continues unabated, and there are reports of attacks with cluster munitions as well. An inquiry led by distinguished British experts reported on the photos of the bodies of around 11,000 tortured and executed Syrian detainees. Some 2.5 million Syrians are refugees in the region, three quarters of them women and children. The UN expects 4 million refugees by the end of this year.
Against this horrifying backdrop we continue to seek a negotiated settlement to the conflict, but there is no sign of the Assad regime having any willingness whatsoever to negotiate the political transition demanded by the UN Security Council. The second round of Geneva II negotiations ended on 15 February without agreement on future talks. UN and Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi had proposed an agenda for a third round of talks focusing on violence and terrorism—the regime’s stated priority—and a transitional governing body, in parallel. The regime refused this. As a result the talks were suspended, with Mr Brahimi clearly laying responsibility for that at the regime’s door.
The national coalition, by contrast, approached the negotiations constructively and in good faith. It published a statement of principles for the transitional governing body, stating that it would enable the Syrian people to decide their own future and protect the rights and freedoms of all Syrians. Those supporting the regime side, including the Russian and Iranian Governments, need to do far more to press the regime to take this process seriously and to reach a political settlement, as we have done with the opposition. We will continue our support to the national coalition and to civil society in Syria. We are providing £2.1 million for Syrian civil defence teams to help local communities deal with attacks, and improve the capability of local councils to save the lives of those injured and alleviate humanitarian suffering. This includes training, which is now under way, and £700,000 of civil defence equipment including personal radios, rescue tools, fire-fighting clothing, fire extinguishers, stretchers and medical kits.
The UK is also proposing a £2 million package of training, technical assistance and equipment support to build up the capacity of the Free Syrian Police, working with the US and Denmark. I have laid before Parliament a minute to approve £910,000 of equipment, including communications equipment, uniforms and vehicles for the Free Syrian Police. We also intend to make a contribution to the Syria Recovery Trust Fund, established by the UAE and Germany, focusing on health care, water supply, energy supply and food security. We are working with the Supreme Military Council to agree the best way of restarting our non-lethal support, which we halted temporarily in December.
The regime’s foot-dragging is also clear on the removal of chemical weapons from Syria. According to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, only 11% of Syria’s declared chemical stockpile has been removed, and the regime has missed the 5 February deadline for removing all chemicals. That has delayed the destruction operation by months, and puts the 30 June final destruction deadline in jeopardy. This slow rate of progress is unacceptable. The UN Secretary-General and the OPCW have made it clear that Syria has all the necessary equipment to enable the movement of the chemicals. The OPCW’s director general is pressing the Syrians to accept a plan that would see the removal of all Syrian chemicals in a considerably shorter period, enabling the deadline to be met.
Turning finally to Iran, the first step agreement with Iran came into force on 20 January and continues to be implemented. The E3 plus 3 and Iran met last week to start negotiations on a comprehensive agreement, aimed at ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is and always will be exclusively peaceful. The talks were constructive. The E3 plus 3 and Iran agreed on the issues that need to be resolved as part of a comprehensive agreement, and in broad terms on the approach to negotiations in the coming months. The next round of talks will be in mid-March in Vienna. The E3 plus 3 and Iran plan to meet monthly in order to make swift progress on the issues that need to be resolved in the ambitious time frame we agreed in the Geneva deal in November. The House should be under no illusion that the challenges remain very considerable. A comprehensive solution must address all proliferation concerns related to Iran’s nuclear programme. To that end, existing sanctions remain intact and we will enforce them robustly.
We continue to expand our bilateral contact with Iran; indeed, Iran’s non-resident chargé d’affaires is visiting the UK today. Last Thursday, the UK and Iran brought protecting power arrangements to an end. This is a sign of increasing confidence that we can conduct bilateral business directly between capitals, rather than through intermediaries. I thank the Governments of Sweden and Oman for acting as protecting powers since the closure of our embassy, and for their strong friendship and support to the UK. We will continue step by step with those improvements in our bilateral relations, providing they remain reciprocal. We are, for example, working together on ways to make it easier for Iranians and British citizens to obtain consular and visa services.
On all these issues, we will maintain intensive diplomatic activity in the days ahead and I will continue to keep the House informed on our work with other nations—whether in Europe, the middle east or on the prevention of nuclear proliferation—to ensure a more peaceful and stable world.
Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for advance sight of it.
On Syria, I join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming UN Security Council resolution 2139. Despite the progress made in securing this resolution, however, the UN’s humanitarian appeal sadly remains chronically underfunded. Will the Foreign Secretary join the calls we have made for a fresh donor conference urgently to secure additional funds? If not, will he set out for the House the mechanism by which he judges the funding gap can be better closed? The Foreign Secretary acknowledges that those supporting the regime’s side, including the Russian and Iranian Governments, need to do far more to press the regime to take the process seriously and to reach a political settlement. Will he therefore explain his continued opposition to the establishment of a Syria contact group that could get these Governments around the table?
On Iran, we welcome the agreement on a framework for negotiations on a comprehensive deal in Vienna last week, but progress on a comprehensive deal must be made explicitly contingent on Iran adhering to the terms of the interim joint action plan signed up to in November. Iran is reportedly still operating more than 10,000 centrifuges, yet the interim deal sets out a much lower target. Will the Foreign Secretary set out what ongoing steps are being taken to bring Iran into line with the existing demands of the deal it has already signed up to? Will the Foreign Secretary set out the Government’s most recent estimates of the benefits that limited sanctions relief has so far brought to the Iranian economy, and whether the UK has any plans to push for extending, or indeed limiting, the existing relief package agreed by the P5+1, so as not to undermine the twin-track approach supported on both sides of the House?
Turning now to the events in Ukraine, may I join the Foreign Secretary in offering condolences to the families of those killed and injured during the latest violence? Recent days have seen protest, tragedy and change on the streets of Kiev. The first priority must of course be to ensure that the transition to an interim Government is peaceful and that further bloodshed is avoided. We welcome the work already done by the EU High Representative, including on her most recent visit to Kiev today, to try to facilitate this transition, but does the Foreign Secretary believe that the EU should now appoint a dedicated special envoy to support these efforts?
Alongside political turmoil, the Ukrainian economy has been in a long decline and is now on the verge of collapse. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm whether he has established, during his call with Foreign Minister Lavrov, whether the Russian offer of financial support, which was previously made to the Yanukovych Government, has now been withdrawn? In December, I asked the Foreign Secretary about his readiness to call on International Monetary Fund reserves to be used to help to stabilise the Ukrainian economy. At that time, he said:
“If Ukraine is to make use of that facility, it is necessary for it to engage in important structural reforms.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 764.]
Yesterday, two months since I first raised the issue, the Foreign Secretary confirmed that he believes the IMF should be prepared to act. We have all seen in recent months the geopolitical risks of delay in delivering effective financial action, so does the Foreign Secretary recognise that while conditionality is of course necessary, there are potentially urgent issues around solvency that may need to be addressed? If he does accept that, how does he propose that they should be addressed?
The European Union association agreement which sparked the recent crisis could still prove vital in helping to revive the rebalancing of the Ukrainian economy in the long term. Will the Foreign Secretary be pushing for negotiations on the reopening of the agreement, and should the terms of the deal itself be kept closed or be revisited? President Obama was right to say that Ukraine could no longer be seen simply as a “cold war chessboard”, but will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether he was aware of any guarantees from Foreign Minister Lavrov that Russia would not encourage southern and eastern regions of Ukraine to break away from the rest of the country? Of course Ukrainians have divergent views on the future of their country, strongly shaped by geopolitics, language, economics, and indeed geography, but the territorial integrity of Ukraine remains a matter of significance not just to Ukraine itself, but to the whole wider region.
The Foreign Ministers of France, Germany and Poland, alongside Catherine Ashton, have done vital work in recent days, and the Foreign Secretary was right to praise their efforts. Indeed, recent events in Ukraine have made it clear that—as in other instances—the influence of the United Kingdom Government, acting alone, would have had much less impact without our ability to amplify our influence through our membership of the European Union. However, although that important work has been done in recent days, all of us in the European Union and the international community should acknowledge that much work still lies ahead in relation to this troubled but important country.
Mr Hague
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support for Security Council regulation 2139, which was passed at the weekend. As he said, only part of the $6.5 billion for which the UN appealed has been provided; $2.2 billion was secured at the pledging conference in Kuwait last month, which means that much more needs to be raised. Given that that conference was held only five weeks ago, I do not think that holding another now would greatly change the position, but it is very important for us to follow up last month’s conference. Ministers from the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development are doing that all the time, and are pressing for other donations. I do not rule out the need for further such conferences—indeed, I am sure that no supportive Government would do so—but if we are to achieve the momentum that will enable us to secure more donations, we shall need a wider gap than the five weeks that have elapsed so far.
The important aspect of the resolution that was passed at the weekend is that, while it does not change the amounts involved, it does allow us to try to help in new ways. The provisions relating to the delivery of aid across borders, which the UN has not previously authorised, and to aid for civil society in Syria, are very important if they can now be followed up. If implemented, the resolution will help to improve the humanitarian situation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a contact group. I do not think that I have ever said that I was opposed to such a group, but, as with any issue, a useful contact group must be cohesive in its purpose. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that one commodity we are not short of, in relation to Syria, is meetings about Syria. I do not know how many hundreds I have attended over the past three years, but if they were the solution, everything would have been resolved a long time ago.
Progress is made—and it has been made in relation to chemical weapons and the resolution passed at the weekend—when the five permanent members of the Security Council achieve some cohesion, in this case with the strong encouragement of Australia, Jordan and Luxembourg on the Security Council, and that remains the most promising way in which to move forward on Syria. However, if we could achieve more cohesion in regard to purposes and pressure on both sides, contact groups could be established in the future. I am not opposed to that.
Iran is currently implementing the agreement, as far as everyone—including the International Atomic Energy Authority—can see. We are not considering extending or limiting the sanctions relief of approximately $7 billion in the current six-month period, which is the amount specified in the agreement. The agreement can be renewed after six months, for further periods of six months. If it were renewed, further sanctions relief would need to be negotiated, but within this six-month period, we must and will stick to the agreed amount, and will not extend or limit it. The estimated amount of about $7 billion must be set in the context of about $60 billion to $100 billion of Iranian assets frozen worldwide. That is small relief, relative to the total, but it is an important signal of our seriousness, and it will maintain the pressure on Iran to come to a comprehensive agreement on the nuclear issues.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s questions on Ukraine, it is not clear at the moment how Russia will proceed with financial assistance. He appeared to suggest that there should be unconditional IMF or other assistance for the country. He rightly pointed out that I said, months ago, that there were important conditions to be attached, and I still say that today. It is vital that such economic assistance, through international financial institutions, should not be wasted and that it should not indirectly subsidise Russia. Any such money therefore has to be accompanied by serious reform in Ukraine. The IMF could put together a package very quickly; a programme has been almost ready to go for some time, and the groundwork has all been laid, but the Ukrainian Government’s commitment to much-needed reform is important—as it is in any country receiving support from the IMF.
Ukraine needs to demonstrate the stability of its public debt burden as well as strong prospects for access to private capital markets and the political capacity and will to deliver reform. There is no reason why a new Government should not do those things very quickly. The association agreement remains on the table, but the priority now is to achieve an end to violence, to establish a unity Government and to hold free elections that are fair to all concerned. The appointment of a special envoy is a matter for the High Representative to consider, but it is something that the United Kingdom would support.
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that bold, visionary and generous thinking is now required in Ukraine, in stark contrast to the corrupt brutality and incompetence of its Government? If the EU and Russia were to resolve this matter together, without strings attached, it would do a great deal to draw a line under this serious post-war hangover and create law-based liberty for all Ukrainians.
Mr Hague
My right hon. Friend is right to call for visionary leadership to bring to an end the pervasive culture of corruption and the divisive politics. That is absolutely what is needed in this situation. It is also important for the EU nations and Russia to work together; that is one of the reasons why I have been talking to Foreign Minister Lavrov this afternoon. Incidentally, I did not respond to the shadow Foreign Secretary’s point on that matter. He emphasised, as I did on the telephone to Mr Lavrov, the importance of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and of the country staying together. It is important that all channels of communication between Russia and the EU should stay open and that we are able to support such a new vision.
Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the rapacious and endemic corruption in Ukraine is not confined to the regime of Mr Yanukovych, and that it has now spread and infected virtually the whole of Ukrainian society? We should be generous with financial aid, but it is absolutely right that we should insist on stringent conditionality. On Iran, I welcome the steps that the Foreign Secretary has taken. Will he tell us what steps the British Government are taking to implement the clear obligation in the 24 November agreement to designate certain banks and financial institutions in this country as facilitators of sanctions relief?
Mr Hague
The right hon. Gentleman’s first point is absolutely right; that is the point that I was making a moment ago, and he might want to reinforce it to the shadow Foreign Secretary when he gets a chance. The word I used to describe the corruption was “pervasive”, and we have to be clear about the conditions attached to any financial support for Ukraine. On his question about banks, there are explicit exemptions under the EU sanctions for transactions made for humanitarian purposes and non-sanctioned purposes. There is no legal barrier to banks in the EU undertaking such transactions, but that is a commercial decision for them. I will look further at the point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)
As my right hon. Friend has implied, a common thread runs through the three difficult issues he has discussed: Iran, Syria and Ukraine. In both Iran and Syria, progress, however limited, was made as a result of engagement with Russia. What possible viable future does he conceive of for Ukraine unless there is similar engagement with Russia?
Mr Hague
This is a very important point. Again, it is why the Prime Minister spoke to President Putin on Friday, and why I have spoken to Foreign Minister Lavrov today and agreed to speak again in the near future. It is very important that we present this correctly. We are seeking a democratic and free future for Ukraine, one in which it makes its own decisions. We believe that closer economic links between Ukraine and the European Union can be beneficial to that entire region, including to Russia. We are not presenting this as a strategic competition between east and west—it would be a mistake to do so—so continuous contact with Russia and recognition of the fact that its approach to Ukraine will always be important to its stability will be a continuing feature of our policy.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I welcome UN resolution 2139, but when it comes to ensuring that humanitarian assistance gets into Syria, and indeed across borders into countries where there are millions of refugees, the power brokers are still Russia and Iran. What persuasion is being exerted on those countries to exercise their power in such a way that the innocent civilians in Syria are not left either starving or slaughtered?
Mr Hague
The hon. Lady makes a crucial point. The one encouraging sign—I do not in any way guarantee success in this—is that Russia was part of the agreement on this Security Council resolution. It could not have been passed without the support of Russia. The text has been negotiated painstakingly over the past two weeks, including with Russia. Now that it has been passed, we will hold Russia to the implementation of the resolution. It is a step forward—as I have described, it is a chink of light in a depressing scene—but we will continually press Russia to assist with the implementation of this resolution, which means getting humanitarian aid more effectively to millions of people who need it.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of the problems in Ukraine have been stoked by the policies of the Kremlin? Will he and his international colleagues take every opportunity to remind the Russian leadership that the era of the Soviet Union is over, that interference in what they regard as their near abroad is counter-productive and anachronistic, and that sovereign nations should be allowed to operate self-determination without hindrance or interference?
Mr Hague
We will always stand clearly for democratic nations being able to make their own decisions without outside interference—without duress—from other nations. We have made that clear both in our own statements and those from the whole of the European Union in the conclusions, over several months of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, and we will continue to make that clear. Of course, I pointed out to Foreign Minister Lavrov earlier today that in the events over the weekend many Ukrainians joined in these decisions, including people who were previously of the governing party. They voted in the Rada for the impeachment of the President and for the elections to be held early, so these are decisions that are being made across parties in Ukraine and they are decisions we should respect.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
During the recess, I was in Kiev, at the Rada and on the streets, and I wish to thank our ambassador for his good advice and help. I, too, am convinced that Ukraine’s future lies in a choice not between east and west but between the autocracy, corruption and cronyism of the past and a future of human rights and the rule of law. What will the UK and the EU be doing to persuade Ukraine’s new Government to establish an independent judiciary, a fair and balanced electoral commission and an anti-corruption commission with teeth?
Mr Hague
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has returned safely, and I will pass on his thanks to our ambassador. We are already conveying those messages through our embassy. I have asked to talk to the Speaker who has been declared the acting President—[Interruption.] I am not sure about encouraging that thought, Mr Speaker. I have asked to speak to the acting President to convey the message from the UK that the new Government should not be as divisive as the old one so evidently was. They should seek reconciliation and be a true unity Government who try to establish a new political culture. If they do those things, they will receive a great deal of international support.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary may know that the EU-Ukraine association agreement is still under scrutiny in the European Scrutiny Committee and will certainly require a debate. It is important that he has mentioned the fact that the International Monetary Fund, and not the EU, should be the lead on this. The amount of money that could be required of the United Kingdom in the light of an EU financial deal could be so horrendous as to make it completely unacceptable.
Mr Hague
I have consciously tried to reassure my hon. Friend on that matter. I deliberately mentioned IMF support. There will be opportunities for European Investment Bank or European Bank for Reconstruction and Development support as part of a broader international package, but those options do not involve a quick fix. The focus now needs to be on ensuring that the IMF is at the front and the centre of any package of assistance to Ukraine. I will be discussing that with it in Washington later this week, as I am sure other EU countries will do as well.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
Like others, I have been disturbed by the violence that we have witnessed in Ukraine in recent days, but I have also been struck by the footage of ordinary citizens who have been prepared to put themselves on the front line to secure accountable government. Will the Secretary of State assure us that protecting human rights and civilians will be the Government’s top priority in their diplomatic efforts in the days ahead?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely. That is why I emphasise that our fundamental interest is in a free and democratic Ukraine that respects human rights. In that way, it can then make its own decisions, whatever they may be, in foreign and domestic policy. The hon. Lady is right: there is a demand from citizens all over the world for accountable government. We are seeing that in many countries. It reaches fever pitch in countries where the Government are particularly corrupt or where the political systems are unresponsive to public opinion. That is a lesson for many Governments and political systems all over the world.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I am sure that the wide-ranging nature of the Foreign Secretary’s statement today reflects the extraordinary volatility of the new world order. I suggest that the House might like to have the opportunity to debate this matter further rather than simply hearing a statement. In my right hon. Friend’s discussions with Mr Lavrov of Russia, has there been any mention of Crimea, because of course it is the Russian Black sea fleet that is based at Sevastopol? One must bear in mind the fact that a large proportion of the population there have Russian passports. Did Mr Lavrov give the Foreign Secretary a cast-iron commitment that Russia will not intervene?
Mr Hague
On the question of a debate, the Deputy Leader of the House is in his place and will have heard that request. My hon. Friend will be pleased and somewhat reassured to hear that Mr Lavrov did not raise the issue of military intervention in Ukraine. My hon. Friend was right to point out that the Russian Black sea fleet is based at Sevastopol, but it is clear, as I said on the television yesterday, that any notion of this kind is manifestly not in the interests of Russia or Ukraine, and I hope that that point is well understood.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, Abdul Waheed Majid became the first British citizen to conduct a suicide bombing in Syria. So far, 360 British citizens have travelled to fight in Syria. Estimates of other conflicts indicate that one in nine of those returning will take part in domestic terrorism. What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Home Secretary to try to prevent British citizens from going abroad to engage in terrorist activities?
Mr Hague
Of course we have regular discussions in the Government and with our allies on this very important subject. It is now of serious concern, as I and the Home Secretary have mentioned previously. I cannot go into details, for obvious reasons, about all those discussions, but I can say, as the Home Secretary has said, that we will always protect our national security. I remind people that our advice is against all travel to Syria and that, if necessary, the Home Secretary has the power to remove passports or to revoke leave to remain in this country, and all our security and law enforcement agencies are working very closely together on this.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whether in relation to Iran, Syria or Ukraine, the United Kingdom’s ability to influence events positively is largely enhanced by our being a member of the European Union and that the EU’s ability to influence events is largely enhanced by the fact that it has been able to speak with one voice on these issues?
Mr Hague
We work very effectively with other countries in the European Union. Of course, I would point out that being a member of the UN Security Council is pretty key to all this as well, but we will always use our membership of all the international institutions of which we are members to try to address such crises and to resolve them.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
As several hon. Members have said, Russia’s role in providing an enduring solution in Iran, Ukraine and Syria is vital. What is the Government’s medium to longer-term strategy for better engaging Russia on these and other issues?
Mr Hague
This Government set out from the beginning to create a better working relationship with Russia, which had become very difficult through no fault of the previous Government in the previous few years. Of course, there remain serious difficulties, such as over the murder of Litvinenko and over human rights issues, which are often raised in the House, but for the reasons that the hon. Lady sets out—for reasons of working together in the UN Security Council on many more issues than just this one—it is important to have a good working relationship. We have established a frank and good working relationship. That does not mean that we agree on everything, but it does mean that, at such times of crisis, the channels of communication are fully open.
Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the UK’s role in achieving the Syria resolution—I quite agree with him that it was an important achievement. On Ukraine, does he agree that one of the many reasons for the present crisis was the EU’s early hesitation and a lack of clarity in its aid package? Will he elaborate on what his discussions with the IMF and the World Bank will involve? Given that the elections in Ukraine are far from becoming a foregone conclusion, does he agree that it may make sense to wait until those elections are over before concluding that agreement?
Mr Hague
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his congratulations. Our diplomats in New York again did an excellent job in helping to secure the resolution, by working on it hard over the past two weeks.
On Ukraine, it is not clear that it is possible to wait that long for a financial package. The situation there is very serious. Ukraine has dwindling reserves, a depreciating currency, large foreign exchange debts that are falling due, a large public deficit and a large current account deficit, and it is shut out of private capital markets.
Mr Hague
Actually, it is more like Britain was before the current Government came to power, but it is worse even than that. Therefore, the package cannot necessarily wait until 25 May. It is important for the new Government being formed now in Ukraine to show their readiness to undertake the necessary reforms.
Mr Skinner
Have I got it right, or not, that a Tory Foreign Secretary has come to the House to take money out of the pockets of people in Britain—flood-ravaged and austerity-riddled Britain—to hand it over to the EU fanatics in Ukraine? Is that correct? Is money no object, and how much money will we give them?
Mr Hague
That is not correct—let us be clear about that. [Interruption.] Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that what we are talking about is IMF support, which does not involve tax rises in the United Kingdom; it does not involve any extra money being taken out of the pockets of anyone in the UK. We are talking about IMF support under agreed conditions, given to people who are willing to undertake economic reforms in Ukraine, and I do not think that they would all come under the description of “EU fanatics” any more than the hon. Gentleman would. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. From a sedentary position, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) moderately unkindly suggested that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) was “bonkers”. I do not seek to make any judgment on that matter, but I simply remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman served for some years—he may still do so, for all I know—either as patron or president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, a post for which I think the whole House will agree he was extremely well equipped.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
May I express that last question in a slightly gentler way by asking if we can avoid any Russophobia in this debate? “Ukrayina” means “borderland” in Russian, and Ukraine has always been a legitimate sphere of Russian interest. In the shape of the Kievan Rus, it was the foundation of the modern Russian state in 800 AD, so can we accept that only the Russians can bail out this state to any significant extent and we have to work with them?
Mr Hague
Russophobia, as my hon. Friend described it, certainly has no place in our diplomacy on this issue. It is very important for Russia to respect the democratic wishes of the people of Ukraine; it is important for all nations to do that. However, it is also important for all of us not to describe this as a binary choice for people in Ukraine. It is important for Ukraine to have a future in which it is able to have close links and co-operation with the European Union and Russia. That should be what we are seeking, and Russian understanding of that is important to long-term stability in the region.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I gently suggest to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that homophobia does not have a role in Russia either.
The Foreign Secretary has suggested that there is corruption in Ukraine, and he is absolutely right, but Russia’s involvement since Ukraine gained independence in 1991 has been pernicious, self-serving and corrupt. Is it not time that the whole idea of “my backyard” or “your backyard” was put away, as a means of securing a prosperous future for the people of Ukraine?
Mr Hague
Since I am trying to make sure that in the long term we can work with Russia on this, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I have put things in a slightly different way from the words that he is using. It is of course important to have Russia’s co-operation and support in achieving long-term stability and recognition of democracy in a country such as Ukraine. We should always work together on securing that and we should always talk to Russia about those matters.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it would be wrong to lend money to Ukraine before she has a stable democratic Government in charge and one that has the respect of the people, and before she has an economic plan that might work? The British people will not thank him if we lend Ukraine money that we do not get back and the economic crisis there gets worse.
Mr Hague
I do not think that anyone in the IMF will want to lend money that there would be little chance of getting back, so the readiness to undertake economic reforms—for instance, any observer of the economics of Ukraine would see that gas price reform is necessary—will be important in Ukraine agreeing an IMF package. That will require some difficult political choices in Ukraine. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need for this, so it is a question of how quickly a new Government in Ukraine can supply the necessary political will.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Given that Russia has developed a customs union with Belarus, Kazakhstan and, suddenly and more recently, Armenia, is it not the case that despite the Foreign Secretary’s wish—he said that there was not a choice between Russia and the European Union—President Putin sees things in a different way?
Mr Hague
It is very important for us, however anybody else may see this, to maintain this narrative and perspective, which is true: we do not intend association between the Ukraine and the EU to be hostile or damaging to Russia. However anybody else may present this, we should be insistent on that point.
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)
Prime Minister Medvedev has just described events in Ukraine as an “armed mutiny”. Did the Foreign Secretary make it clear to Mr Lavrov that the whole European Union, while sensitive to Russian interests and concerns, will support the people of Ukraine if they choose a free and democratic future in closer association with the European Union, as well as good relations with Russia?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely, and both parts of what my hon. Friend says are important: they are what I have been saying. We support that association, including an association agreement with the EU. Our prime interest is in a free and democratic future for Ukraine, but that need not exclude economic co-operation and working with Russia on many issues. We are absolutely clear about that, and he is right that the whole European Union will support that free and democratic future for Ukraine.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On Ukraine, recognising the popular demonstration against the discredited president, and deploring the killing of demonstrators—this House should not be indifferent to those killings—will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind the activities of the far right? It is important to note that, unfortunately and tragically, Ukraine has a long history, over centuries, of racial intolerance and crimes.
Mr Hague
It is very important; and we were clear about this in our comments last Wednesday and Thursday, when the violence was taking place: we called for all violence on all sides to stop. A great deal, but not necessarily all, of the responsibility for that violence fell on the then Government, so it is important to make it clear that our message about avoiding violence is to all sides. It is also clear, however, from events over the weekend, when more than 300 Members of the Ukrainian Parliament voted for various measures that have now been enacted, that there is a great deal of cross-party support in their country for what has happened, including among many who were in the Party of Regions, the party of Mr Yanukovych. That political change is taking place with the support of many more people than just any far-right elements.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
May I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the heroes of the Maidan who gave their lives, and will he confirm that the UK will do all it can to work with the new Government to bring to justice all those responsible for the deaths, including possibly freezing financial assets held in London?
Mr Hague
Yes; I think that the right way for the new Government to approach this, as I said in my statement, is in a spirit of reconciliation but holding to account those responsible for human rights violations. Of course we resolved at the Foreign Affairs Council on Thursday to impose visa bans and asset freezes on those who we know are responsible for such violence, so we can exercise that power.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary has repeatedly rightly said that Ukrainians must decide the future of Ukraine, and that political change must be achieved peacefully. Accepting those constraints, what does he think, in practice, the EU can and should do to build capacity and support political development?
Mr Hague
We can do a great deal, as we have in many other countries. The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Through the work of our embassies, we can give the Ukrainian authorities clear advice, as I have been doing in public today, and shall do in private, about how matters should be conducted to achieve that free, democratic future with financial support from international institutions. However, it is also important to communicate that message more widely across many different sectors of society in Ukraine—our embassy has begun to do that —and it is possible to find in European Union countries funding to support democratic development and political capacity building. We will be ready to do that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Whether we like it or not, Ukraine is a polarised society, with large parts looking towards the west and significant parts looking towards Russia. Does the Secretary of State think, therefore, that the constitutional advice we give should include a recommendation for some form of devolved government so that Ukraine does not become a focus for east-west tension or, heaven forbid, confrontation?
Mr Hague
That analysis is correct. I said earlier that it is important not to present this as a binary choice for Ukraine. My hon. Friend’s argument is the reason for that: a binary choice would always make it difficult for a nation with that composition to give a 100% clear answer. It is important to leave open the wider possibilities of co-operation, both with Russia and with the European Union in future. It is for Ukraine to decide its constitutional structure. We can support the objectives of territorial integrity and the workings of a democratic state, but it is for it to decide the means of doing so.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)
In 2011, I visited Kiev with the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) as part of the efforts by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to try to build a stronger Parliament. Those efforts failed. Has the Foreign Secretary given active consideration to finding fresh funding to restart that process as one of the things that we do to help the Rada move forward?
Mr Hague
That is a possibility, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). It is for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to decide its own dispositions. My job is to maintain the funding for that, which I have done, so that it can make those decisions. We will need a fresh look altogether at how we can support that democratic development under the right conditions.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to working with Russia to secure a stable and democratic future for Ukraine and to resolve the problems in Syria and Iran. However, will he make it clear that no nation in today’s world is entitled to establish or to seek to maintain spheres of influence? In this year, of all centenary years, we should remember that that is the politics that leads to war.
Mr Hague
I agree very much with my hon. Friend about working with Russia, and that in the 21st century we live in a world of global networks in which the power of ideas has become more important than spheres of influence. Democracy, accountability and human rights are ideas that cannot be suppressed, and should not be suppressed. We look at international diplomacy in that way. I agree that the age of spheres of influence is now over.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
What discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Chancellor and others about the role that international financial regulatory bodies, banks and, indeed, other treasuries can play to give practical support to investigations into corruption? Where wrongdoing is proven, what steps can be taken not only to freeze but return assets to the Ukrainian people?
Mr Hague
Where we have evidence of corruption, we can act: those who are called politically exposed persons and who live in the UK are subject to that scrutiny. The Treasury is very much in favour of that. The Foreign Office and Treasury will work closely in ensuring that the international financial support I have been speaking about is based on clear conditions and on transparency and that it is used effectively, not in a way that feeds corruption.
Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)
What chance does my right hon. Friend think there is of a marked improvement in Anglo-Iranian relations and, besides the enormous nuclear question, what issues must be settled for this important rapprochement to begin to happen?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right to say that this is an enormous issue and that until it is resolved it is an impediment to relations of the sort that we want to see. But we also want to see a wider change in the foreign policy of Iran, which has created great difficulties for the region through the Iranians’ involvement in Syria, Lebanon and other parts of the middle east. We would like them to work much more constructively with their various neighbours, including those in the Gulf, and we would like to see a marked improvement in their appalling human rights record.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
I am sure I am not the only Member of Parliament struggling to resolve cases of Ukrainians born before 1991 seeking safety in this country who are, in effect, stateless. Would the Foreign Secretary have a gentle word with his colleagues in the Home Office regarding the exceptional circumstances of those who had only internal passports, who have no external passports and find themselves trapped in our asylum process?
Mr Hague
This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as the hon. Gentleman knows and correctly identifies, so I cannot give a more detailed answer than the Home Office has given him in the past, but I will draw the attention of my colleagues to the point he raises.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Some of us on the Foreign Affairs Committee met the Iranian chargé d’affaires this afternoon. He expressed regret at what happened to our embassy. He realises the significance, and apparently Tehran is willing to meet all the assurances sought by London in order to speed up the process of establishing two embassies—something that he himself expressed frustration at. Meanwhile, planeloads of French and German businessmen are visiting Tehran, securing trade deals. Is there at least a chance that the UK is missing a trick here?
Mr Hague
I welcome the attitude of many in the Iranian Foreign Ministry to this improvement in the bilateral contact we have been building up over recent months. My hon. Friend understands very well the complex power structure in Iran. At the time that our embassy compounds were invaded in 2011, I doubt very much that this was at the behest of the Iranian Foreign Ministry or with the approval of that ministry. So it is necessary for us to be confident that the Iranian system as a whole is ready to let an embassy fulfil the normal functions of an embassy. Good progress is being made on that, as he has seen for himself. On trade relations, it is very important to uphold existing sanctions, not to send a false signal to Iran that it now need not worry about the economic situation, and the United Kingdom will be careful not to send such a false signal.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
How does the Foreign Secretary see the implementation of the United Nations resolution on aid to Syria? Surely that will be very difficult to implement.
Mr Hague
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that is going to be difficult to implement, because the presidential statement of the Security Council agreed on 2 October last year was certainly not implemented. That is why we have gone back to the Security Council for a resolution. This has the additional force of a resolution. It has the force of international law behind it and the world behind it, including Russia’s agreement. So it is a much more substantial product of the Security Council and I hope, therefore, as I said, that Russia will now join in the pressure on the Syrian regime to permit its implementation, but nothing is yet guaranteed on that.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My question has just been asked, so I will waste the House’s time no more.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Members of Nottingham’s Association of Ukrainians assembled yesterday to remember those killed in the recent violence, and I am sure that they will welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today. What discussions has he had with colleagues in other Departments about how we can support Ukraine and its economy at this critical time?
Mr Hague
I was just thinking, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the precedent of not asking a question that had been asked before could revolutionise proceedings in this House—and indeed the answers.
The hon. Lady has asked a different question though, and a very important one. Our discussions are primarily with the Treasury about support from the IMF programme. The Chancellor has been discussing this with his G20 colleagues at their meeting in Australia this weekend and I will discuss it with the IMF in Washington this week, so we are in close touch about how not just Britain but the world can provide that financial assistance, but in a way that meets conditions so that we know that it will be used for genuine and productive purposes.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for making this statement, as it is vital that there is clarity about what is in our national interest and what we are prepared to do to protect it for the benefit of a domestic audience as well as a foreign one. Is there similar resolve among the foreign ministries of other EU member states?
Mr Hague
Yes, I hope and believe so. I think we are all clear that what I set out earlier is our primary interest here—a Ukraine with democracy and freedom of expression that respects human rights. That is then the basis of everything else. It can then make its own decisions about how it wants to work with the EU and Russia. I will certainly continue to make this point, and I think we have it in common with our EU partners.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I take it from what the Foreign Secretary said earlier that he did not seek any specific assurances from Foreign Minister Lavrov about the possibility of military intervention. Will he explain why that is the case and who the UK Government recognise as Head of State in Ukraine?
Mr Hague
I put it to Foreign Minister Lavrov that Ukraine would benefit from reassurance from Russia about this situation and about how we will all try to work with the new Government in Ukraine. As I mentioned earlier, he was very clear, as I was, about the importance of the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Those points were made very clearly. We are working with the new Government in Ukraine. There is, of course, a dispute constitutionally about who is the President, but in this situation it is clear that whatever the constitutional provisions, the authority of Mr Yanukovych as President is no longer widely recognised. In order to achieve the objectives that I have just set out it is necessary for us to talk to the Speaker, who has been declared the acting President.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I welcome the steps that are being taken to seek to stabilise the Ukrainian economy and the recognition that urgent action is required, but what further steps are being taken on the other vital task, in the Foreign Office and with other Departments, to help with the constitutional reform that is required across the political landscape in Ukraine?
Mr Hague
The Ukrainian Parliament has voted to adopt the 2004 constitution, a system with less presidential power, although that remains to be implemented and will be bound up in the elections planned for 25 May. Our embassy will make it clear that the UK has a great deal of expertise, including in tackling corruption and transparency in government. For instance, the UK is very much at the heart of the Open Government Partnership, which we advocate all over the world to combat corruption and give citizens confidence in the administration of their country, and we can bring the benefits of that to Ukraine as well.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware of recent reports that Hezbollah forces are now fighting alongside the Syrian army loyal to President Assad close to the Syrian-Lebanese border. Given the potential that has for wider regional instability, what more can be done beyond the Geneva II process to prevent other parties from being drawn into what is already a highly volatile and bloody conflict?
Mr Hague
Yes, there have been reports of that on and off for a long time, as the hon. Gentleman will know, particularly in early 2013, when large numbers of Hezbollah fighters were clearly in Syria. Indeed, quite a large number of them were killed. It is important for us to help stabilise neighbouring countries so that they are less likely to be drawn into the conflict. We are doing that in a big way in Lebanon, where we are assisting with education and humanitarian aid and helping the Lebanese army with its border observation posts. However, the only answer to the risks he spells out is a political solution to end the crisis, and that is our top priority.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has recognised the importance of economic stability to the long-term structural stability of Ukraine. Does he agree that long-term economic stability also requires transparency and national and international trust in Ukraine’s legal systems and systems of public administration, which it currently lacks, as does Russia? Will Britain see what more it can do, in addition to economic aid, to assist in enhancing Ukraine’s legal systems, both directly and through our membership of the Council of Europe?
Mr Hague
I will make that important point to the authorities in Ukraine when I visit. Britain has a lot to offer when it comes to well-functioning legal systems that create confidence in the rule of law and in property rights, which encourages investment. I can assure my hon. Friend that I will be making that point.
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), UK banks are often intimidated by extraterritorial US congressional sanctions on any business with Iran, even if those transactions are licensed by the Treasury and are in accordance with EU sanctions requirements. If we are to meet our Geneva accord obligation, I urge the Foreign Secretary please to do more than just leave it to commercial decisions and proactively to nominate a UK bank to handle future EU and Iran humanitarian transactions, in the same way that the French and German Governments have done.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
When the Foreign Secretary refers to democracy, human rights and the rule of law, I trust that that applies to all peoples and nations. In the concluding paragraph of his statement, he referred to
“intensive diplomatic activity… to ensure a more peaceful and stable world”
and he specifically mentioned the middle east. Why, then, does Britain have double standards when it comes to the Palestinians?
Mr Hague
That is not the focus of today’s statement. However, respecting the hon. Gentleman’s question, he will know that we give strong support to the middle east peace process and to the negotiations now taking place between Israelis and Palestinians. We want to see a viable and sovereign Palestinian state as part of a two- state solution. That is not double standards; it is trying to bring about peace and stability for everyone in the middle east.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I have raised with my right hon. Friend before the matter of the compensation due to the British Government for the Iranian Government-sponsored mob smashing into the British embassy compound some time ago, doing millions of pounds worth of damage and frightening diplomatic personnel to death. While we are talking about advancing relations with Iran, is not the reality that the British taxpayer is due some compensation under the Geneva protocols for the damage done?
Mr Hague
Yes, absolutely, the British taxpayer is due compensation by Iran for the very serious damage that was caused to our embassy compound. As I indicated earlier, there are a number of issues to be resolved now in taking forward our intensified bilateral contact, and that is one of those issues.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
As others have noted, each of the countries mentioned in the statement suffers from the malign influence of the Russian state. Although I fully recognise that the Foreign Secretary must maintain relations, does he agree that our long-term approach towards Russia, and that of other European democracies, needs further thought, and that that would be greatly aided by making Europe less dependent on Russia’s mineral resources, access to which it continues to use as a geopolitical weapon?
Mr Hague
In our dealings with Russia, and with any other country, we should always be clear, as we are, that we support freedom, democracy and universal human rights around the world. We are committing to working with Russia in many ways, as I have described, but on energy we are also committed to a diversification of energy supplies into the country. In December I was in Baku at the inauguration of what will become a new pipeline route for gas into Europe. That diversification is strategically important.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
Ukraine is a historical name but some parts of its territory are less historical than others—for example, the Crimea was incorporated into Ukraine by Khrushchev as recently as 1954. While I welcome my right hon. Friend’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), will he reiterate that if the difference of opinion between east and west Ukraine translates into a different trajectory, we will be mindful of those aspirations?
Mr Hague
Yes, we should be mindful of the history. Like any country, Ukraine is a product of many different histories, as we are in the UK. That requires a political system that accommodates that, and achieving it is a major political and constitutional challenge for Ukrainian leaders. As I mentioned earlier, Ukraine is a sovereign nation and we cannot lay down to them what the solution is, but we can encourage them to have political leadership and a political system that is responsive to the concerns of different parts of their country.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
On Syria, does the Secretary of State agree with certain comments and reports that the situation on the ground does not allow for transition or dialogue because the Assad regime is so strong, which is why it refused to accept discussions on a Government in Syria? What steps are being taken to overcome that? Linked to that, the Secretary of State has said that the United Kingdom will be providing technical assistance. Does that include providing intelligence sharing so that the Free Syrian Army would have certain targets to look at?
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend is right that the fact that the regime feels itself to be in a strong military position, relatively, is probably behind its intransigence at the Geneva negotiations. In the long term, of course, that will be an illusion, because it is in that position in a collapsing country. This conflict has gone backwards and forwards over three years now, and its tide can easily turn against the regime in future. I think it is making a great mistake. I would never comment in the House on intelligence matters, as my hon. Friend knows, but I stress that this is one of the reasons we must help a moderate opposition to stay in being. There will not be a political solution in Syria without the activity of a moderate opposition, and that is what we must support.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Last but certainly not least, I call Neil Carmichael.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to be here for the final question.
It is absolutely right that the issue of political and constitutional reform is a priority, and that the integrity of Ukraine remains an objective. However, does the Foreign Secretary agree that any economic support through the IMF should also be supported, in effect, by development of international trade through and with Ukraine in order to embed political reform and to avoid any binary choice, which he correctly notes is a threat?
Mr Hague
We must strongly encourage international trade for Ukraine, which currently has a current account deficit of more than 9% of GDP. The absence of sufficient exports is part of its very serious economic problem. We will tell it very clearly that one of the things that can be achieved if the right economic programme is implemented and political stability and unity is achieved is, of course, a serious improvement in that position.
Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Criminal Justice and Courts Bill represents the vital next stage in this Government’s mission to deliver a more credible justice system that keeps the public safe and secure, reduces reoffending and puts victims first. Under the previous Government, we had a plethora of criminal justice Bills as they jumped from one bandwagon to the next, but that was all to distract us from the real truth that Labour is the party of soft justice and unsafe streets. Too often, those who broke the law got away with a slap on the wrist, did not receive the punishment the public would expect, were released from prison even though they were still dangerous and were allowed to continue the cycle of more reoffending and more victims. This Government, on the other hand, have a consistent and clear approach: the justice system must be on the side of those who work hard and play by the rules, keeping our communities safe and secure.
We are already delivering on that promise. We have ensured that those convicted of a second serious sexual or violent offence face an automatic life sentence, and we are committed to having more prison places for adult males by the end of this Parliament than we inherited in 2010. We have toughened up community sentences, so they are no longer a soft option. I am pleased to say that proposals brought before this House through the Crime and Courts Act 2013 are now law. All community sentences now contain an element of punishment. It is extraordinary that that was not the case already, but it is now.
We have changed the law to give greater protection to householders in defending themselves against burglars—we have dealt with that issue once and for all. We have transformed the regime in our prisons so that they are now places of hard work and discipline, where prisoners are expected to engage with their own rehabilitation and work hard to earn their privileges. We are implementing fundamental reforms to transform rehabilitation by bringing together the best of the public, private and voluntary sectors and paying providers in full only if they reduce reoffending. The Offender Rehabilitation Bill, in its final stages before this House, will finally address the unacceptable situation whereby 50,000 short-sentence prisoners are released each year with no support, free to return to their criminal ways.
We have already achieved a lot, but there is more we can and must do. Too often, the system is inconsistent in the way it deals with offenders, especially those offenders who repeatedly flout the law. It cannot be right that muggers and rapists get off with a caution, or that those who abscond on licence can do so safe in the knowledge that, if caught, they will serve no more than the remainder of their sentence. There are too many offenders who commit serious crimes but are released automatically midway through their prison sentence. We will take action in this Bill to address those issues.
Perhaps most striking of all is the situation with youth offenders. Nearly three quarters of young people who leave custody reoffend within a year. The system simply is not working. We need to equip young people with the skills and self-discipline they need to turn their backs on crime, and that change needs to happen now, starting with this Bill.
My reforms do not stop there. I do not believe it is right that at a time when public finances are tight, the taxpayer continues to shoulder such a heavy burden for the cost of the criminal courts. In my view, the burden should be shared with those who are responsible for giving rise to the costs in the first place—the criminals themselves. Provisions in this Bill will make that a reality.
This Bill also contains some important measures as part of our long-term economic plan. Reforms to judicial review in this Bill, alongside those implemented in the first stage of the reforms last year, will tackle lengthy delays in the system, which put an undue burden on the taxpayer, act as a brake on dynamism and hold back economic growth. The reforms, which have been extensively consulted on, will rebalance the financial elements in judicial review cases so that anyone making a claim shares a fair level of financial risk. That will encourage those who bring claims to consider the merits of their case before doing so, and ensure that public resources are focused only on well-founded claims. I shall return to those provisions after I have dealt with the criminal justice provisions in more detail.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces a firm but fair package of sentencing and criminal law reform. I am determined that those who commit crime will be properly punished so that the public can both have more confidence in the justice system and feel safer in their homes and communities. I strongly believe that serious and repeat offenders should face the full force of the law for their crimes. It is not right that such offenders can be let off with a simple caution time and again.
I want to ensure that victims receive the justice they deserve, and that criminals know that they cannot lightly get away with what they do. That is why this Government are clamping down on the use of simple cautions. Offenders will no longer receive a caution for the most serious offences, such as rape and robbery. For other offences, the Bill will prevent the repeated use of cautions for the same or similar offences committed within a two-year period.
One of the aspects of our justice system that causes me most concern is the concept of automatic early release. As I have said before, I cannot abide a situation in which serious sex offenders and terrorists may serve only half their sentence in prison and—regardless of whether they have been rehabilitated and regardless of the risk they may continue to present to the public—are then simply released automatically midway through their sentence.
I do not think that early automatic release should be a right. That is why I am making a start on tackling it in the Bill, which introduces measures to end automatic early release for anyone given an extended determinate sentence, or sentenced to custody for the rape of a child or for serious terrorism offences. No such offenders will be released before the end of their custodial term, unless the Parole Board judges that they no longer pose a risk of serious harm to the public. I would like to do away with automatic early release in one step. In times of tight resource, I cannot do it in one go, but I can make a start, and that is what the Bill does.
Terrorism poses a serious threat to our society. Terrorists who commit or try to commit horrific crimes in this country must face the very toughest punishments. The Bill will close a loophole that desperately needs to be closed. It will increase to life the maximum penalties for a further range of terrorism offences, and it will extend the enhanced dangerous offender regime so that courts can impose the most serious sentences necessary for such crimes. I want to create a situation in which when courts view somebody as a junior member of a terrorist plot—until now, that might not necessarily carry a life sentence—they can decide to impose a life sentence because they view them as a serious threat to the public, and the Bill will enable the courts to do that.
Once prisoners are released, it is vital that they comply with the conditions imposed on them. If an offender is repeatedly or wilfully non-compliant with the terms of their licence, they should not be continually recalled to custody for short periods and re-released. The measures in the Bill will introduce a statutory test for the release of offenders who have been recalled to prison for breaching their licence conditions that takes into account not just public protection, but the likelihood of the offender committing further breaches, including reoffending.
I want to ensure that we increasingly use cutting-edge technology to monitor better the whereabouts of offenders while they are under supervision. Innovative GPS tagging technology will allow location monitoring of offenders, as well as the monitoring of compliance with other conditions, such as curfew and exclusion. I want us to be ready to harness the potential of this new technology, as it becomes available, to assist with public protection, reducing reoffending and crime detection.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State say what the cost of that programme will be and how successful prosecutions have been in the courts against people who have broken tags? I understand that there have been a lot of problems with tags not being reliable.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the existing radio-based tagging technology has been pretty unreliable. I have seen the new generation of emerging technology in action and it provides some good options. It provides the ability to monitor a curfew or to prevent somebody who has been convicted of child sex offences from going near a school. Some offenders can actually benefit from the use of this technology. On one visit, the police showed me that they had excluded somebody from suspicion in the case of a household burglary because it was possible to demonstrate that they had not been in the area at the time.
As I have said clearly, I want to start using this technology for release on temporary licence. We have seen some very difficult cases over the past few months. The vast majority of people who are released on temporary licence commit no crimes and simply want to be reintegrated into society. However, when dangerous offenders come to the end of their sentences and have to be released on temporary licence, this technology has the potential to ensure that we know where they have been and to provide a degree of restraint as we integrate them back into the community.
The cost of the programme will depend on its scale. The technology that we are introducing to take over from the existing systems will save money. It will cost tens of millions of pounds a year less than what we have spent until now. It will be possible to extend the use of the technology to other groups, such as offenders on temporary licence, at a relatively low cost.
I want us to be ready to harness the potential of the new technology. That is why I am seeking to take powers in the Bill to enable mandatory location monitoring of offenders who are released on licence. As the technology becomes available, we will then have the discretion to be able to use it to the best possible effect to protect the public when people are released on temporary licence and, potentially, when people have committed very serious offences.
I am creating a new offence for offenders who go on the run after being recalled to custody, so that those who try to avoid serving the remainder of their sentence do not go unpunished. There will be a new maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
The final provisions in part 1 deliver on a commitment that is important to me and the Prime Minister. The Bill will make it a criminal offence to possess pornography that depicts real or simulated rape. I am sure that both Houses will share my view that such images are wholly unacceptable and that it is right to close this gap in the law.
That brings me to part 2 of the Bill and how we deal with young offenders.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
Before my right hon. Friend moves on to part 2, will he provide an estimate of the additional costs to the prison aspect of his departmental budget that will be caused by the welcome changes to the criminal law that he is introducing?
Chris Grayling
The cost will build up over the next five or 10 years because, as my hon. and learned Friend knows, one cannot apply sentencing rules retrospectively. The proposals on automatic release for the most serious offences are containable comfortably within the existing prison budget and within the expected resources of the Department. Only a relatively small number of people commit the most serious and brutal offences, and those are precisely the people whom we do not want to release automatically halfway through their sentences because of the risk that they pose to the public. I am therefore confident not only that this is containable comfortably within the departmental budget, but that it is the right thing to do.
On part 2, I believe that it is right that young people who commit crimes should face appropriate punishments. That is and always should be a matter for the courts. When young people commit serious or persistent offences and there is a need to protect the public, custody is a necessary option. However, we have taken positive steps over the past three years to ensure that we deal better with young offenders who do not pose an immediate risk to society.
On becoming Justice Secretary, I was appalled to discover that so many young offenders who are released from custody go on to reoffend within a year. Currently, the rate stands at 69%. That is an astounding percentage that far exceeds the reoffending rate for adults on leaving custody. It is simply too high. We spend as much as £200,000 a year per place in some institutions, but the reoffending rate is consistently around 70%. That cannot be right, it cannot be sensible and we have to do something about it.
We must do more to help young offenders back on to the straight and narrow and ready for adult life, and high-quality education is a key part of that. Most young people who end up in our youth offender institutions or secure training centres have dropped out of school, have few or no qualifications, and do not have the skill foundations they need to leave and get into work. We must address that and do more to help them back into having real prospects of an apprenticeship or work. Otherwise, the danger of reoffending will be ever great.
At present, young people in young offenders institutions spend on average just 12 hours a week in the classroom, and latest figures suggest that more than half of 15 to 17-year-olds in YOIs have literacy and numeracy levels expected of seven to 11-year-olds. The Bill contains provisions to create what we are dubbing “secure colleges” so that we can trial a new approach to youth custody, with a stronger focus on the education and rehabilitation of young offenders, equipping them with the skills they need to stop reoffending and become law-abiding members of our society.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for giving way and I am interested in where the £85 million for his secure college is coming from, and from which year’s budget?
Chris Grayling
It comes from my Department’s capital budget and it will lead to a reduction in the annual running costs of institutions. We are creating an institution that provides both high-quality education and better value than we get from the current system, which underperforms and is excessively expensive because of the nature of the provision out there. I believe this institution will be a major step forward and deliver high-quality education in a modern environment and campus setting, with the focus on education rather than simply detention. That is a key difference.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
If this model is considered to be as successful as the Lord Chancellor obviously believes it will be, can he say whether it will be extended to young women as well as young men, and whether they will be co-located in the college?
Chris Grayling
On co-location, there are a number of places in our current system where men and women, or indeed different age groups, are located near each other without being mixed together. I expect the secure college to have a range of age groups, but for them to be separated so that 12-year-olds are not mixed with 17-year-olds. Living on the same site, using the same facilities at different times, and maximising the effectiveness of the resource we put into creating those facilities must be a sensible way forward. If the secure college model works, I do not rule out having women’s units on site as well, but that does not mean we mix them. At Peterborough prison, a women’s prison and a male prison adjoin and share many of the same facilities, although the two sides do not mix. It is about making the best use of our resources to deliver the highest quality educational skills outcomes to a group of young people who will not get on in life unless we help them develop those skills. That is the whole purpose of what we are trying to do.
This is a different kind of institution. A few people are saying, “This is just the biggest children’s prison in Europe”, but that is complete nonsense. This is much more akin to a school or college with a fence around it on a site that can deliver quality education and a mix of skills development, in a way that will genuinely help take young people—while we have them under our control—through a period of skill building of the kind they desperately need. That will be a whole lot better than having young offenders institutions with big iron bars and 12 hours in the classroom. This is a new approach that I think can make a real difference.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I apologise to the Lord Chancellor for missing the first part of his speech. I welcome his approach and it is important to provide more education within a secure setting. I have raised with him in the past the concerns that I and the Home Affairs Committee have had about the number of young people who acquire the drug habit while in prison or at a young offenders institution. Does he intend to ensure that there will be lessons to get people off drugs when they attend the institutions he has described? That would be a positive step to stop reoffending.
Chris Grayling
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we already make intense efforts across our detention estate—for young people and others alike—to try to get people off drugs and prevent them from coming into those facilities. He will also know that it is a constant battle because there are people out there making a determined effort to get those drugs in. This is not a problem that simply affects this country; it exists in most other major industrialised nations and elsewhere. We will continue to do everything we can to combat it, and in this institution I want to see treatment available for those who have a problem, but also a real effort to ensure a drug-free environment.
Part 3 introduces a suite of provisions to reduce the burden of court costs on taxpayers by making criminals pay towards the cost of their court cases, streamlining the way magistrates deal with low-level offences and modernising the law on the work of juries. As we work to bring down the costs of the justice system and deliver better value for money, I am clear that it is not fair to continue to ask UK taxpayers to fund a criminal court system, or to ask law-abiding members of the public to pay increased fees in the civil courts, without offenders being expected to make a greater contribution. The provisions will allow us to recover from offenders the cost of criminal courts and make a contribution to the day-to-day running of court services. This is not a novel concept: courts can already order offenders to make payments to victims and victim services, and to pay fines and prosecution costs. There is currently no power, however, to make offenders pay directly towards the cost of the court proceedings that convict them.
Dr Huppert
The Justice Secretary is absolutely right that there are other powers. The latest figure I could find is that £1.3 billion of debt is owed as a result of these orders. What fraction of the charges does he think will actually be paid?
Chris Grayling
The collection rate of fines and other charges levelled in the courts is in excess of 80%. There is a large block of historical debt, much of which is owed by people who, for reasons that include that they have simply died, for accounting reasons have to stay on the books. I accept that that is daft and it is a matter of debate among accounting figures in government. The figure my hon. Friend cites is not a sum of money that could ever realistically be recouped by the taxpayer, but, of the money that is levied in courts every year, we currently collect about 80%. I have no reason to believe that we will not continue to do that, and I have no reason to believe that these reforms will not lead to the collection of the many tens of millions of pounds we seek to collect to make a contribution to the running of the court system.
Kate Green
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very generous with his time. When funds are being recovered, will he say in what order they will be disbursed? In particular, will priority be given to payments to the victims compensation fund, ahead of reimbursing court costs?
Chris Grayling
We will not change the order of the collection of fines and victims’ charges. The collection of court costs will come after that. It is worth saying that the repayment of the charge will, as is normally the case in the courts in relation to fines and victim surcharges, be set at a rate that offenders can afford, so there will always be an incentive for them to find a job and to work hard. Offenders will be able to earn their way out of the charge if they do not reoffend. We will make provision for the charge, or any outstanding sums of money, to be written off if the offender does not reoffend. There will, therefore, be an incentive to go back into work, get on with it and make regular payments. Then, when they do not reoffend, an amount of money will be written off. That is a fair and balanced way to ensure that we secure a contribution from those who can afford it—there are people in our courts who will be able to afford this money on the spot—and create a system whereby if people do the right thing, we will do the right thing by them and write off any outstanding money.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that we take the enforcement of such payments extremely seriously. We continue to work hard to improve enforcement levels and we will address some of the historical debt by outsourcing the collection of criminal financial impositions in a more effective way. I hope that that will enable us to recover some of that debt. I want to ensure that those who have the means to pay but refuse to do so, do not escape without consequences. The reality is that many people work very hard to avoid paying money to the courts and we need to use every tool at our disposal to ensure that they pay.
We must continue to look at ways to make the court system more efficient and proportionate to crimes committed. Too much of magistrates’ time and court time is currently spent simply going through the motions of hearing a case where the defendant has pleaded guilty by post or has not responded. We currently have the absurd situation of valuable court time being spent on hearings where paperwork is simply read aloud by lawyers. The Bill allows a single magistrate to deal with such cases away from the traditional magistrates courtroom. It will free up valuable court time to focus on cases where they make a real difference to victims and their communities, while preserving a defendant’s right to request a hearing in open court.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State not think it a bit dangerous for such cases to be dealt with by a single magistrate? Would it not make our justice system more secure for three magistrates to sit on the bench, so that they could at least discuss the case and reach a collective decision?
Chris Grayling
We have a high-quality magistracy in this country, and I am confident that, in simple cases—when someone has pleaded guilty to, for example, a motoring offence by post, and the facts are very clear—our magistrates are capable of reaching a decision themselves. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are great strengths in a system that provides for a bench of more than one person to deal with a criminal prosecution when someone’s liberty may be at stake, but I am confident that, when it comes to dealing with simple offences and guilty pleas that are submitted by post, our approach is realistic.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Is it not the case that, if one magistrate is allocated but the defendant wants there to be three, the defendant can request that?
Chris Grayling
Indeed, but in my experience, most magistrates would regard themselves as perfectly capable of dealing with relatively simple processes of this kind. I think that the provision will free up court time and create a smoother process.
Jeremy Corbyn
At what level would it be decided whether there should be one magistrate or three, and what would be the appeal process in the event of a magistrate’s refusing to call in colleagues if the defendant wanted that to be done?
Chris Grayling
Typically, these will be uncontested cases. A contested case in which the defendant wished to plead not guilty would not be dealt with outside the courtroom. These are simple cases in which there is no doubt about the defendant’s guilt because the defendant has pleaded guilty, and which can be dealt with out of court by magistrates, without the formality of a court hearing.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that in most instances not only is the case uncontested, but the defendant does not even turn up, and there is then the rigmarole of a prosecutor reading out the facts to an empty courtroom? In those circumstances, it is obviously sensible to adopt the proposed reform.
Chris Grayling
I would say to my hon. Friend, and indeed to the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), that if someone wishes to contest a charge, it is probably a good idea for him to turn up in court to do so.
Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when this streamlined procedure is adopted, pre-hearing consultations take place with defendants about their ability to pay a fine? A proper written means test would enable realistic fines to be imposed, and to be much easier to collect than fines imposed by means of an exercise that would be theoretical without such information.
Chris Grayling
That is a very good point, which we should certainly take on board.
Kate Green
In the context of this part of the Bill, I should place on record my interest as a life member of the Magistrates Association.
When decisions are made outside open court and entirely on paper, with no public pronouncement being made, how can the public be made aware of sentencing practices in relation to the offences that we are discussing?
Chris Grayling
I have made it very clear that we must not lose transparency as a result of our reforms. In today’s world, the local paper reporter obviously will not sit through cases of this kind, because there are not the necessary resources. However, it is vital for the local media, for example, to have access to information about what happens in the courts, and we cannot allow the new process to take place behind closed doors. I am a strong believer in transparency in the courts, and we will provide mechanisms to ensure that the public have access to court decisions. That is only right and proper: we cannot have secret judgments.
Part 3 also deals with the important issue of jury misconduct. Trial by jury is a fundamental feature of our justice system, and juror misconduct can have a devastating effect, causing delays, cost, and damage to public confidence. I am clear about the fact that people should be tried by the courts, not by the internet. When an individual is before the court, the jury must decide on the basis of the evidence presented and principles of justice, not the results of a Google search. The Bill introduces a number of criminal offences in order to tackle such behaviour, based on recommendations by the Law Commission. It also deals with the publication of potentially prejudicial materials during court proceedings, on which the current law is outdated and in need of reform. I think that these provisions represent a careful balance between the right to report and publish freely, and the right to be judged only on the facts before the court, and I thank the Law Commission for its work in this regard.
Sir Edward Garnier
I commend my right hon. Friend on the provisions relating to juries, and on clause 39 in particular, which will raise the upper age limit for jurors to 75. That was a lacuna that needed to be dealt with. May I ask him to go a little further on age limits? Would he consider putting the age limit for judicial retirement back up to 75, because we are losing a great resource at the moment? That would not mean that everyone had to stay on until they were 75, but there are plenty of judges who could do so—[Interruption.] I will speed up my intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker. At this rate, I will be 75 before I get to the end of it. There are plenty of good judges who would like to, and who could, stay on beyond the age of 70, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that point.
Chris Grayling
I hear what my hon. and learned Friend says, but I am not sure that we could afford to raise the retirement age for judges. I do not mean that in a financial sense. Since I took over this position, I have spent quite a lot of time approving the appointment of retired judges to a number of important roles in society, such as chairing commissions and leading reviews. We would lose that expertise if we allowed them to continue as judges until they were 75, and I am not sure that we could afford to do so.
I shall turn now to the final part of my reforms. Judicial review represents a crucial check on public bodies. It rightly allows individuals, businesses and others to ask the courts to consider whether, for example, a Government Department has gone beyond its powers, whether a local authority has followed a lawful process or whether an arm’s-length body has come to a rational decision. However, I am concerned about time and money being wasted in dealing with unmeritorious cases which are often brought simply to generate publicity or to delay implementation of a decision that has been made properly. Moreover, a significant proportion of these weak applications are funded by the taxpayer, through the expense incurred by the defendant public authority, by the court resource entailed, and in some cases by legal aid or by the public authority bearing the claimant’s legal costs.
The first stage of my judicial review reforms sought to tackle unnecessary delays in the system. Provisions in the Bill will build on those—for example, by making it possible for more cases to leapfrog from the court of first instance to the Supreme Court, speeding up a final decision. We will also seek to change the rules on who has to pay the legal bills for cases, so that all parties have an interest in ensuring that unnecessary costs are not racked up.
Provisions in the Bill will result in stopping taxpayers having to subsidise cases unnecessarily by limiting the use of protective costs orders to exceptional cases with a clear public interest, and only when the court grants them permission to proceed. The provisions will also ensure that details of anyone financially backing a judicial review are disclosed to the court, even if they are not a named party, so that costs can be allocated fairly. They will also make third parties who voluntarily join in a JR case as interveners responsible for paying their own way.
Dr Huppert
Perhaps I have misunderstood clause 53, but it seems to suggest that interveners will have to pay not only their own way but the costs of everyone else involved. That seems rather harsh. The courts have said that they welcome interventions that help to clarify the law. Does not the Secretary of State feel that this measure might go a little too far, and make it hard for people to intervene even though it would be constructive for them to do so?
Chris Grayling
My real concern is when pressure groups use individuals as financial human shields in cases that the groups wish to bring. They find someone who has no financial means, and use them to challenge the Government, and whether or not they win, the Government—that is, taxpayers—are guaranteed to have to pay the bill. The taxpayer will have to foot the bill because there is no prospect of recovering the costs from the individual who is fronting the case. That is what I am seeking to change.
Kate Green
I suppose I should declare an interest in this context as well, given that I used to run a pressure group that brought judicial reviews—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Against the previous Government, I must say. Those judicial reviews always addressed matters of significant public interest. How does the Justice Secretary intend to deal with complex cases whose costs are likely to be high, but in which it would be helpful to the court to have the matters properly argued, analysed and brought to the court’s attention, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) described? Does the Secretary of State have a means of ensuring that his proposal will not shut people out from bringing such complex cases?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Lady certainly did bring cases against the previous Government, but the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I discovered to our surprise when we went into that Department in 2010 that the practice of the previous Government was to guarantee to pay the costs of the pressure group from day one. We got a call from one pressure group saying, “We are going to bring a judicial review. Can we assume that the usual arrangements will apply and you will pay the costs?”, to which the answer was, “Well, actually, no.” It was a strange way for the previous Government to do business.
As I said, protective costs orders will still be available for cases of genuine public interest, but my fear is, and my experience has been all too often, that cases are brought for public relations and campaigning reasons in a way that leaves the taxpayer guaranteed to pick up the bill. I do not think that is fair on the taxpayer.
Keith Vaz
The Government have taken away the right of appeal in a number of immigration cases, and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes), who is sitting by the Justice Secretary’s side, was very vocal in the campaign against the abolition of the right of appeal in immigration cases. There has been a huge increase in the number of judicial reviews in immigration cases. Is it fair that we should cut off every single judicial route, enabling people to have nowhere to go if they want to challenge decisions?
Chris Grayling
We assess carefully each immigration case that comes before the Border Agency and there is then the opportunity to challenge in the courts, but just how many times are we going to give people the right to appeal? There have been many cases, and indeed occasions when our judges have said, “This is not good enough”, where the case has simply been brought as a delaying tactic to stop people being asked to leave the UK—that is in nobody’s interest.
Robert Neill
Will my right hon. Friend take on board the fact that, unfortunately, previous interventions have highlighted the error that has crept into many people’s thinking? They believe that rather than being a process of procedural review—an administration of the propriety of decision making—judicial review should be used as a re-run of the merits. That is not what it was ever intended to be.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, which is one reason why we have sought to ensure that cases where there is no material likelihood of a different decision having been taken cannot simply be brought on a technicality relating to the process. If a minor error of procedure has been made, the decision should not be able to be delayed for months and months when there is no realistic prospect of a different decision being reached.
The Government have consulted extensively on this package of reform, and we did so with an open mind. Concerns were raised, both practical and principled, about proposals to reform “standing”, which determines who can bring a judicial review, and I have decided not to pursue those. Judicial review must continue in its role as a check on the powers that be. It is an important tool for our society which allows people to challenge genuinely wrong decisions by public authorities. These reforms do not change that, and I would not want them to do so. They make it more difficult for pressure groups simply to use judicial review as a campaigning tool and for those with a financial vested interest—for example, one developer judicially reviewing another—to delay a process of investment, to derail a competitor or to derail a major project that is strategically and economically in the interests of this country.
The Bill contains a vital set of proposals as we work to deliver a justice system in which people can have confidence—a justice system that deals robustly with those who repeatedly commit crimes. The Bill toughens sentencing for some of the most serious crimes and ensures that serious offenders will be released only if they can show that they are no longer a threat to society. The Bill requires offenders to contribute to the cost of the criminal courts, and allows us to test a new approach to youth custody and to reduce the delays and expense involved in unmeritorious judicial reviews. The Bill draws a line under Labour’s soft justice culture, provides hard-working families with greater safety and security in their communities, and removes barriers to economic growth. I commend it to the House.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Let us be frank: this Bill has come from nowhere. If the Government really wanted a new justice Bill, the obvious place to trail it would be in the imminent Queen’s Speech, not today with a Second Reading towards the dreg ends of this parliamentary Session. So what is going on? With 15 months to go until the general election, experienced heads around Parliament say that it has never been so quiet.
We know the old saying that the devil makes work for idle hands. Recent weeks have certainly shown that to be the case, with the Government suffering a number of troubling episodes with their own Back Benchers, perhaps in no small part because the thin legislative programme leaves their own sides twiddling their thumbs. Nature abhors a vacuum; so too does Parliament. Disquiet, plotting and rebellions tie the Government in knots, leading to the absurd situation in which the Opposition had to step in and vote down a Tory Back-Bench amendment on the Government’s own Immigration Bill—an amendment that broke the rule of law—while the Conservative majority in the coalition sat on their hands. Has anyone heard of anything so pathetic? We have a governing party that could not even vote in favour of its own Bill, and a Lord Chancellor who swears an oath to uphold the law but who could not even bring himself to vote for that rule of law.
We can guess what happened. The Prime Minister had probably sent out a desperate memo, pleading with Cabinet colleagues to bring forward legislation—any legislation—to fill the pitiful gap in parliamentary schedules and to keep Tory Back Benchers happy and busy. Who was the only willing and eager star pupil to respond? Who was as keen as mustard to be top of the class? Yes, it was the Justice Secretary. I can see his response to the Prime Minister. It would start, “Dear Dave”. I appreciate that that is not parliamentary etiquette, but he is known as the “Call me Dave” Prime Minister.
The letter would go on, “I read your memo, begging for legislation to make it look like this Government are doing something, and also to keep those pesky, ungrateful Back Benchers happy. I know they hold you responsible for not winning the last general election. I am only too willing, Dave, to rush forward some legislation. It is a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, but it does mean that we can shove on as many baubles as we want. After all, the more tabloid friendly stuff might keep UKIP off our backs, along with those ungrateful Back Benchers of yours. Yours sincerely, Chris.”
Sir Alan Beith
Does the right hon. Gentleman see real benefit in returning to the days of a Labour Government when there was a criminal justice Bill every year—sometimes there were two—that often repealed a previous Bill and was often not brought into force?
Sadiq Khan
I am really pleased that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question. This is the third justice Bill of this Session. Two of the Bills have not yet received Royal Assent, and the Government are having a third bite of the cherry. Furthermore, the Justice Secretary tried to rewrite history. During our 13 years in government, crime did not go down by 5%, 10% or even by 20%; it went down by 43%, and that was according to independent statistics and not to dodgy figures that the Justice Secretary likes to rely on.
This latest criminal justice Bill is having its Second Reading before either of the other criminal justice Bills —the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill and the Offender Rehabilitation Bill—that the Chair of the Select Committee was so keen to support have even received Royal Assent. Talk about desperation! The Select Committee Chairman should listen. We know the Government are in a mess when they bring in new laws to amend laws that they passed only a year ago, as some parts of this Bill seek to do. That is the mess this Government are in, and that is the shambolic way they are running our justice system.
I will not go through every one of the Bill’s 63 clauses, but I want to make myself clear. There are some elements of this Bill we support, some need further work and there are some we downright oppose. In part 1 of the Bill, the Government attempt to make up for the error they made when they abolished indeterminate sentences for public protection. I know that the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) feels strongly about that. They cannot admit they got it wrong and do a 180° U-turn, so they are doing a partial U-turn by bringing in a raft of new sentence proposals
Of course we support keeping the public safe from the most serious and violent criminals. That is why we opposed the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the previous Justice Secretary, when he removed from judges the power to make IPPs to protect the public. To be fair to the current Justice Secretary, he would never have countenanced abolishing that power, but he cannot admit that because he voted for its abolition. We therefore have clause 3 and schedule 15 eligibility for life sentences and extended determinant sentences to try to address the mistakes of the Legal Aid, Sentences and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012.
Giving the Parole Board a say in whether some of the most serious criminals should be released at half time or when they reach two thirds of their sentence is no substitute for judges having the power when sentencing to impose an indeterminate sentence to protect the public. That will give the Parole Board an extra work load, yet I bet that the Justice Secretary cannot tell the House what extra resources he will give it to do its job properly. Silence. The Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment estimates that there will be at least an extra 1,100 parole hearings owing to the Bill. If all the supplementary work involved is added, there will be a huge addition to the Parole Board’s work load. How will that be resourced? Silence.
Surely even this Justice Secretary understands that a poorly resourced Parole Board making the wrong decisions about whether to release someone is as bad as automatic release. Wrong decisions made by the Parole Board because of an overburdened and stretched staff help no one; nor do delays in getting a hearing because of a backlog. There are problems and delays in prisoners getting the courses and treatments that they need as part of their sentencing plans and delays in getting a parole hearing, but let us imagine what the future holds.
Increasing the maximum for a handful of offences still leaves many offences uncovered that would have previously allowed a judge to give a more appropriate sentence to protect the public. By the way, although we do not oppose them, let us be clear that the provisions to increase the maximum life sentences for certain terrorism-related offences look tough, but the Ministry of Justice impact assessment confirms that this is a classic con trick. Do hon. Members know how many offenders were convicted in 2013 for the offences of either weapons training for terrorist purposes or training for terrorism? None. What about 2012? None. This new toughness will affect no one. None of those offences is being brought before the courts, so there is no one to punish and no one to deter. I wonder how the Justice Secretary intends to measure the impact of the change. He does not know. This is all about appearing to look tough.
Chris Grayling
If the right hon. Gentleman looks back, he will see that in the latter part of the past decade in the wake of the London bombings, our security services did a fine job of intercepting a number of terror plots. In that time, a number of people received 10-year jail sentences, which is the maximum available to the courts. On at least one occasion, the judge bemoaned his inability to provide a longer jail sentence because of the risk he believed the individual posed to the public. Happily, there are not large numbers of such cases. I think we would all agree that we do not want to see more of them. I hope that the provision will not be used very often, but it needs to be there in case it is necessary.
Sadiq Khan
The right hon. Gentleman confirms that he made a huge error in abolishing the indeterminate sentence to protect the public. He is trying to give the impression of being tough and providing the facilities that our security services need, but in fact the evidence suggests that there have been zero prosecutions for such offences.
Labour has led calls for something to be done about the inappropriate use of cautions for serious and violent offences, such as rape, and to stop those who repeatedly receive cautions. Those are not my words but something that the Library paper that accompanies the Bill says. The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has raised this, as indeed have I, at Justice questions. It has taken the Government some time even to admit that there is a problem with the growth of inappropriately used cautions for serious and violent offences.
I can remember the Justice Secretary getting into a tangle at Justice questions when trying to explain cautions for rape and saying that victims are to blame and that cautions are given because victims withdraw their statements. We must study in detail the proposals to see whether they will indeed address the public’s growing concern that the overuse of cautions is another example of this Government’s doing justice on the cheap.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Library briefing paper. He will have noticed that the highest number of both cautions and fixed penalty notices were issued in 2007, under the last Government. They are down by 45% today, which shows the contrast between the last Government and this Government.
Sadiq Khan
If the hon. Gentleman had done some more research and read the Bill as well, he would have seen not only that the number of cautions had started going down considerably but that this Bill does nothing to address the increased use of fixed penalty notices, penalty notices, warnings and conditional cautions. I expect that he will support our amendments in Committee when we try to improve this hopeless Bill.
Taken as a whole, the changes in part 1 of the Bill will see more people in our prisons. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment estimates that an additional 1,050 prison places will be needed. However, as of last Friday there were just 510 places left in the whole prison system, with the secure estate operating at in excess of 99% capacity, which usually sees Operation Safeguard kicking in. The Justice Secretary needs to be straight about where he plans to keep these additional prisoners: with his flagship Titan prison not due on stream until 2017, the public have a right to know that.
Chris Grayling
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the numbers, he will see that we are planning in the next 15 months to open up around 2,000 new adult male prison places.
Sadiq Khan
The problem is that the Justice Secretary is closing down prisons and does not explain where the money for these additional prison places will come from. His own impact assessment is silent on that.
Sadiq Khan
They are not in the budget, because the average cost of a prisoner is £42,000 a year. If we multiply that figure by the increased number of prisoners that the Justice Secretary’s impact assessment says there will be—1,050—it comes to a total of £44 million a year. That is not in the budget.
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman needs to spend a bit of time doing maths. I simply point, for example, to the new house block that will open at Parc prison in south Wales in the next few months, where the average cost per prison place is about £15,000.
Sadiq Khan
I am happy to have a ding-dong with the Justice Secretary. That figure applies in prisons such as Oakwood, which are failing—new purpose-built prisons. In a prison such as the one I visited last week in Winchester the average cost is £42,000; in a prison such as Wandsworth, it is £44,000; in Brixton, £46,000; and in Pentonville, £48,000. He is just plucking figures out of thin air and assuming that all 87,000 prisoners have the same £15,000-a-year cost. That is not the case and he has to be honest enough to recognise that there are far too many expensive prison places because of the legacy of his cancelling the new prisons and closing down too many over the last four years.
The concern is that the Justice Secretary talks a good talk, especially when briefing the right-wing media, but he simply does not care about or pay attention to detail, as he is working on the basis that he will be long gone before any of his mess needs to be cleared up. After all, he left a huge mess in the Department for Work and Pensions with his Work programme. He is assuming that somebody else will be left to pick up the pieces of privatising probation, of legal aid and of this prison population crisis.
Dr Huppert
While the right hon. Gentleman is in the mood to do mathematics, will he advise us of the extra cost to the public purse of the extra 30,000 people in prison between the beginning of the last Labour Government and the end of the last Labour Government? Will he give us an estimate of how much that cost?
Sadiq Khan
If we did a cost-benefit analysis of the number of people who were saved the misery of being the victims of crime as crime went down by 43%, and of the additional cost of having extra police officers, which led to a record decrease in crime, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that there was value for money.
Keith Vaz
As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a large number of foreign national prisoners in the prison estate, costing the taxpayer, as he says, an enormous amount of money. What we need is not legislation but a focus on trying to get them removed to their country of origin. Making sure that that is done would be a better use of the Government’s time than building more prisons.
Sadiq Khan
My right hon. Friend will know that the number of foreign prisoners in our prisons is just a bit above 10,000. That has been the figure for the past four years, and the Government have done nothing to get it down. They would do better to pay attention to getting it down, rather than to getting headlines in the Daily Mail or The Daily Telegraph. That would free up places and lead to a huge improvement.
We broadly welcome the direction of travel on electronic monitoring, subject to clarification on costs and technical developments; the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) raised some of the concerns that we have that need to be addressed. We will closely scrutinise the ability of the Ministry of Justice properly to monitor the private companies awarded the contracts, to ensure that the public get value for money and the Ministry is no longer taken for a ride.
We do not oppose the plans relating to automatic release and recall, and we welcome clause 16, which bans the possession of extreme pornographic images depicting rape. A number of victim groups and experts have called for that change, and the Government and the Justice Secretary should be commended for listening to the evidence.
I turn to the second part of the Bill, on youth justice. It is worth pausing to reflect on the dramatic fall over the past 10 years or so in the number of young people held in custody. The most recent figures show a drop of more than 60%. I pay tribute to the hard work of the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams up and down the country. I am proud of Labour’s record in setting up the YJB, which led to these falls. I wish the outgoing chair well and the new chair the best of luck in his endeavours. The YJB’s innovative ways of working have delivered enormous economic and social benefits to society, and I for one am delighted that we were successful in keeping it doing its important job, rather than it being abolished two weeks ago, as the Government had wanted.
We have reached a hard core of young offenders in our youth justice system, and that brings a different set of challenges. As has been said, reoffending rates for this hard core remain stubbornly high. The Government’s preferred solution is secure colleges, and the Bill paves the way for their introduction. Ministers have announced only one so far, in Leicestershire. Construction will not start until 2015. There is no clear idea of where the £85 million that it will cost will come from, or what will be cut to find the money. It smacks of another commitment made by this Justice Secretary for which the next Government will be left to pick up the tab. In Committee, we will need to get down to the details, but already a number of groups have expressed concerns about the plans. There will be just one secure college; either it will be a huge college for the whole country—a teenage Titan prison, with all the problems that will entail—or only those in the east midlands will benefit.
There are also concerns about how restraint is planned to be used in the new secure college, and how the college will address the problems underlying offending, such as mental health problems, drug and alcohol addiction—mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—and histories of abuse, trauma and violence. It is also unclear, despite the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), what provision is planned for young females. There is a concern, to be frank, that this is a return to the discredited borstal system.
Nor have the Government made clear their intentions for the network of secure children’s homes. Granted, those are expensive, but I have visited them and seen at first hand the range of severe problems that young people there have to deal with. Extreme caution is needed before this group of highly vulnerable people is lumped in with the wider youth justice system.
We will want convincing that forking out £85 million on bricks and mortar is better than spending the money on improving the amount of education and rehabilitative work in the existing secure training centre network. I see that the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice is here; the Justice Committee recently argued for a “fundamental shift” of resources from custody to early intervention with young people at risk of reoffending. It also made the point that most young offenders would not be in custody long enough—the average is 79 days—for the secure college to do any good in improving basic skills and addressing offending behaviour. A number of experts have also raised concerns, which we shall explore in Committee.
The third part of the Bill proposes changes in our courts. On the face of it, efforts to speed up court proceedings and make them more efficient—for example, by ensuring easier and quicker appeals to the Supreme Court, and by having magistrates courts deal with lower-level offenders faster—are to be welcomed, but this should not be to the detriment of proper open justice or due process. The Civil Justice Council, the Magistrates Association and others have expressed concerns that we should explore in Committee. Similarly, no one opposes convicted criminals being made to make amends for their crimes. The Government now wish to tack a charge on to those found guilty towards the cost of their trial. There have been difficulties collecting fines and the victim surcharge from guilty criminals, sometimes as a result of organisational problems, but sometimes because criminals simply do not have enough money. There are between £1.4 billion and £2 billion in uncollected fines, and only this weekend it was reported that £13 million in victim surcharge had failed to be collected by the Government. I am sure that the Justice Secretary did not mean it when he said that that was because they are all dead, or that outsourcing all of this will solve all the problems. We will seek guarantees that this will not be yet another trumpeted announcement that ends in failure down the years as non-payments rack up and are written off.
It is right that the law on jurors and the use of the internet keeps up to date with the march of technology. I, too, am pleased that the Government have listened to the recommendations of the Law Commission in that respect. However, as Members will recall from the high-profile trial of Vicky Pryce, there are problems with juries not understanding their role sufficiently, and we shall explore what steps can be taken to educate and inform the public and jurors about the important civic function of jury service so that it is less of an alien process to them. I welcome proposals to raise the juror age limit to 75.
The fourth part of the Bill deals with changes to judicial review. In a country without a written constitution, we tinker at our peril with important checks and balances such as judicial review without proper thought. We know the Lord Chancellor’s view on judicial review from a piece for the newspaper that he and his SpAds prefer to brief—the Daily Mail. He said that
“judicial review…is not a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners. So that is why we are publishing our proposals for change…Britain cannot afford to allow a culture of Left-wing-dominated, single-issue activism to hold back our country from investing in infrastructure and new sources of energy”—
news, I am sure, to Conservative Back Benchers and local authorities that have been involved in JRs against Heathrow expansion, High Speed 2 and, no doubt in future, wind farms and fracking.
Let me explain the position to the Justice Secretary in plain English without any long legal words or gobbledegook. MPs, individual citizens, community groups, organisations and local authorities are not
“part of a culture of Left-wing dominated”
campaigners when they legitimately ask the judiciary to review decisions made by public authorities, including Ministers.
To be frank, delays in HS2 or Crossrail 2, the lack of houses being built or of big infrastructure are more to do with the incompetence and policies of this Government than with judicial review. It is hardly surprising that people believe that the Justice Secretary’s true intentions are to insulate his Government’s bad decision making from any kind of challenge. The Government have also sought to rein in legal aid and no win, no fee cases; to gag campaign groups with their shoddy Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014; and constantly to attack human rights laws—there is a pattern. These are the tools by which our citizens hold Governments to account, and the Government are weakening them.
Kate Green
I am glad that my right hon. Friend makes that point, because the Justice Secretary is quite wrong to suggest that the majority of judicial review cases are about campaigners making campaign points. They are about individuals who have suffered personal injustice at the hands of an over-powerful state, and we ought to maintain that ultimate protection for those individuals, many of whom are disabled, many of whom are vulnerable, and many of whom are poorly educated. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, whatever the Justice Secretary presents as the effect of these changes, the reality is that it is vulnerable individuals who lose out the most?
Sadiq Khan
Absolutely. The concerns are that as a consequence of the changes decisions made by Ministers and other public authorities will be put above the rule of law. Those authorities will almost be free to do as they please, to the ludicrous extent that breaking the law appears to be of no concern to the Justice Secretary.
It is clear the Justice Secretary’s measures are underpinned by a majoritarian view of the world in which democracy is only about elections, and those who win can do as they please in between. I would be more sympathetic if the Conservatives had actually won the last general election. The Justice Secretary’s policies are dangerous. Democracy is more than elections: I am not alone in that view, and neither is my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, said that
“there is no principle more basic to our system of law than the maintenance of the rule of law itself and the constitutional protection afforded by judicial review.”
The former Lord Chief Justice, the esteemed Lord Woolf, said:
“In our system, without its written constitution embedded in our law so it can't be changed, judicial review is critical.”
He also said that the Ministry of Justice has shown a
“remarkable lack of concern for the precision of the facts”.
Joe Rukin, co-ordinator of the Stop HS2 campaign—that infamous left-wing dominated campaign group—said:
“The government seem to be making out that they believe any of their infrastructure plans should be above the law and do not realise that it is essential in a democratic society to be able to hold the government to account”.
Chris Grayling
It is the case, if I am not mistaken, that HS2 can happen only if the relevant measure is passed in legislative form by both Houses of Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the courts and people outside Parliament should be able to override democratic decision making by the elected House and the House of Lords?
Sadiq Khan
That question raises so many concerns about the Justice Secretary’s lack of knowledge that it is really worrying. Citizens should be able to challenge the decisions that are made by Ministers, including him and Labour Ministers. That might mean that the courts find that some Government decisions are wrong. For example, they might find against plans to expand Heathrow with a third runway. We have to accept that decisions made by the Executive should be able to be challenged by the judiciary. He should accept the important concept of the separation of powers. We provide checks and balances for the judiciary, the Executive and the legislature. We are not a country in which the Cabinet can do whatever it likes.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I am slightly perturbed by what the right hon. Gentleman has said. These are not decisions that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has said the Government would take—he was talking about decisions that Parliament would take. What is essential in a democratic system is that the will of the people exercised through Parliament is sovereign, not judges who have been elected by nobody.
Sadiq Khan
I do not subscribe to the view that citizens have a role to play only once every five years. They have a role to play in an active democracy between elections as well. That is the difference between the hon. Gentleman’s majoritarian view and mine. The irony is that the Foreign Secretary gets it. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the Foreign Secretary in the statement on Ukraine and Syria, he would have heard what he had to say. It is a shame that the Justice Secretary and the hon. Gentleman did not listen to what the Foreign Secretary said about the importance of the rule of law.
Sadiq Khan
I shall make some progress, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
I hold up my hands up as a former Minister and admit that for someone who is part of the Executive the threat of being judicially reviewed can sometimes feel like a nuisance. Judicial review can be a pain for decision makers, but that is the point. It is about making sure that decisions are taken properly, follow due process and are within the laws of the land. If we expect our citizens to abide by the rule of law, the Government should be no different, which means acting lawfully, not scaring off opponents before the game has begun, or imposing huge consequences on the team that loses. To stretch the sporting analogy further, under their proposals, the Government would be playing down a steep slope for the full 90 minutes, defending a much smaller goal than the one into which they would be trying to score. Their opponents would be running uphill for the whole game, and have a much smaller set of goalposts to aim at. That is not fair, and it is not justice.
It is worth noting what is not in the Bill. Despite all the Government’s recent talk about victims, there is nothing about a victims law—what a missed opportunity—which will disappoint not just victims and potential victims but no doubt the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who has been vocal in her support for the victims law proposed by Labour. Instead, victims and witnesses will have to wait for a Labour Government to serve that law to stop them being ignored and trampled by the justice system. There is also little in the Bill to address the specific problems faced by women, those with mental health problems and ethnic minority communities in our justice system.
I have to congratulate the Lord Chancellor. He has achieved something in his short time in the job that few of his predecessors could ever have dreamed of: he has managed to alienate every part of the justice system. Prison staff are more under pressure and threatened in their day-to-day work environment than ever. Probation staff feel betrayed. They have done all that has been asked of them, then been sold off to the likes of those serial under-performers, G4S, Serco and A4E. Legal professionals are horrified at the erosion of access to justice and the insulation of the powerful from challenge that has happened under the Lord Chancellor’s watch. Charities and community groups are demoralised at the ignorance shown towards the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act. Things are so bad that there is even the threat that the legal profession might boycott the Justice Secretary’s planned celebrations for the 800th birthday of Magna Carta next year. What is more, he has managed to deliver the first ever industrial action by barristers.
The Bill is all about trying to create some work for rebellious, bored and troublesome Back Benchers, some of whom we will hear from later. The Bill may well succeed in doing that, but the idea that it will do anything substantive to reduce crime, help victims to be at the centre of the justice system, improve our courts system or keep our communities significantly safer is a joke, a bit like the office of Lord Chancellor has become with this incumbent.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am not sure whether I have been described before as a bored, troublesome Back Bencher, but I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. Its proposals are sensible and move forward the Government’s position on criminal law reform. I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on his earlier presentation, which I note to the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) was very well received on the Government Benches.
Part 3 allows summary trials for non-imprisonable offences “on the papers” only and without the defendant being present. This is an entirely sensible proposal, but it forms just a small part of a wider debate about which case should be going to which court. Of course, all criminal cases start in magistrates courts, and the vast majority of them are disposed of there without ever going to the Crown court. This is important, first because most of us wholly support the ancient British tradition of low-level crimes being judged by magistrates, but secondly because the cases where an election can be made cost about £3,400 in a Crown court compared with the £900 they would cost in a magistrates court. There is the further question of what should be a criminal offence at all. I would be happy to debate, for instance, whether TV licence evasion is suitable for criminal rather than civil trial.
One of the main stumbling blocks to those part 3 proposals in the past has been disagreement between Government Departments, and I congratulate the Lord Chancellor on knocking the right heads together. The other problem has been the magistrates, who have been unwilling to lessen their work load, give that that has already reduced by more than one third during the last five years or so. Furthermore, the moving of traffic cases to a single traffic court in each police force area, which I think is being proposed, will leave some magistrates courts light-handed and more open to a merger proposal with another local court. There is significant volume here. For instance, speeding alone accounts for some 10% of all convictions. So the issues here are slightly more complicated and need to be placed into context.
Magistrates have also felt a bit under attack in recent years owing to the efficiency changes that really had to be made, and my concern here is that we could be reducing their work load further, without giving them the extra quality work that they deserve. Not only do justices of the peace cost less, but cases go through much faster. Sentencing is not for longer periods if a case goes to the Crown court, juries are more likely to acquit than magistrates, and the Crown procedural delays often mean that witnesses are not available. There are three interconnected issues. The first concerns bulk non-serious cases, which is handled in the Bill. Secondly, there are the magistrates courts that these cases are being dealt in, and, thirdly, as we reduce magistrates input into these bulk areas, there is the question of how to increase their involvement in other areas.
On the first bulk issue, I agree that it is ridiculous that three JPs need to hear a small traffic case in open court with prosecutors involved in reading out case details. I appreciate and agree that defendants should retain the right to a full hearing in open court should they so require, but let us also appreciate that around half of traffic proceedings have no plea entered at all, a point that came up earlier.
On the second issue of magistrates courts being used, will the Minister please confirm that traffic work will be moved to a single court per police area? This is sensible, and I hope that a thorough review of procedure will be undertaken at the same time. I am sure that significant savings and a better service could be provided through better IT and procedures, but this could go yet further and be put into the context of a wider review. Of course, I would maintain that the closure of around 140 courts by the Government was correct, not least because as a result cases are proceeding quicker and at a lower cost. One of the keys to effective court procedure is to have larger court centres where listing and delays can be better managed. If we add to this continued use of technology and more virtual courtrooms in police stations, there is much more we could do. The bulk processing of non-imprisonable cases is part of this, but it would be better placed in the context of the wider whole.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is right to make the point that he does about minor traffic offences, but along with many others no doubt, I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about the boundary between a traffic offence that could be dealt with in the way he describes, and where it spills over into what is, in effect, a criminal offence. Does he agree that if the approach he advocates is adopted, great care needs to be taken to set the boundary?
Mr Djanogly
I certainly agree with that. The Minister may wish to come back to this, but I think that that would be done in discussion with prosecutors, and there would be the ability for someone to request three magistrates if they so wished.
The main possible gap that I see here is on the third issue of wider JP powers, and we should be reviewing part 3 in the context of new summary only offences and an increase of maximum JP sentences to 12 months, not least to give a clear indication to the magistracy of our support. I had heard of some limited Government proposals to make shoplifting a summary only offence where the stolen goods are valued at £200 or less. Perhaps the Minister will advise the House on his proposals in this regard. The Magistrates Association has been advocating new summary only offences for some drugs possession, making off without payment, going equipped for theft, small benefit fraud, some affray and driving offences, some assault charges and failure to surrender to bail. I appreciate that this could result in a rise in the prison population, which the Magistrates Association considers to be about 1,000 people, but on the other side there would be court savings of £30 million to £40 million. Again, I would appreciate the Minister commenting on these proposals.
My second point relates to raising the upper age limit for jury service from 70 to 75. That sounds sensible given the upward age of people in the UK, but will the Minister say a little more about the research that has been done to confirm this? Will the change have any negative implications for younger people not being called? The problem that I found here was the reluctance by the judiciary to allow research to be carried out on jurors. My instinct is that fewer people are now willing to be called than was the case in the past. I would be concerned if the Bill exacerbated that, on the basis that it could allow working people to be let off more easily. My suspicions here are not reduced by a Government note that I saw, mentioning that they expect some savings to result from a reduction in the number of jurors in employment. I do not see that as a good objective for our democratic system.
When I did jury service, on the first day a man rushed in shouting at the court staff that he had 2,500 chickens being delivered that day and who would look after them. He was let off service on the spot, despite presumably having had long notice of his jury date, although perhaps not of his chicken delivery. The point I am making is that jury service is an important part of citizenship; so much so that I think we should be putting as much effort into educating the young in school about its benefits to society, and ensuring that people serve when called, as we are into pushing up the service age. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
My third issue relates to the new contempt of court provisions on jury misconduct. That is important not only for ensuring a fair trial and saving costs, but for retaining confidence in the jury system. If a whole trail needs to be started again because of, say, internet research carried out by one juror, that is hugely frustrating for the other jurors on the case, who could be put off doing service again. My wider point is that access to technology is having such a huge effect on so many areas of our lives, and across all Departments, that perhaps we need a cross-departmental review of its impact on existing legislation.
Clauses 29 to 31 relate to criminals paying their own court costs, as was mentioned earlier. That sounds sensible, and it is something I support, but I note that the payment is made by the criminal after money penalties, after compensation to victims, after the victim surcharge and after prosecution costs. I would not confuse that with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on prior debts, but will the Minister please provide more information on what proportion of those costs are likely to be recovered and whether administration recovery charges make the proposal cost-effective?
Finally, on judicial review, I recall that as a young law student in the 1980s we had to learn about administrative law, but the striking thing then was how rarely it was used, and then only for very serious abuses of power. We have since seen a huge growth industry in which a willing judiciary has now opened up three or four courts across the country to hear those applications, which increasingly resemble appeals, rather than judicial review, or cheaper alternatives to proper cases, often funded by third-party organisations, some of which stay anonymous. That must change, and I am pleased, without addressing the detail, to see those provisions in part 4 of the Bill.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this debate, although several provisions in the Bill worry me intensely. The Bill has more to do with posturing on the part of the Government than with any real policy initiative. The Justice Secretary has presented it at a time when two other crime-related Bills are still awaiting Royal Assent. Indeed, some of its provisions seem to undermine those set out in the Offender Rehabilitation Bill, which is yet to reach the statute book.
Similarly, the Bill’s proposed reforms to judicial review, as set out in part 4, cut across provisions contained in the Immigration Bill—a point ably made by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. Most people would agree that there is a need to introduce a more robust process to weed out the unmeritorious cases, but we must be very careful not in effect to deny individuals who really rely on it. Furthermore, everybody accepts that the review process is a vital component of a healthy democracy: the individual’s right to challenge the over-mighty and to secure justice in properly decided administrative law cases. We limit those rights at our peril.
I will quote from a very interesting article that appeared in last Thursday’s edition of The Times, penned by a Member of the other place, a very experienced Queen’s counsel who has taken judicial review cases on many occasions and defended Governments in such cases as well. He wrote:
“Clause 50 provides that courts and tribunals must refuse to allow a judicial review application to proceed to a full hearing if the defendant shows that it is ‘highly likely’ that the outcome for the applicant ‘would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred’. If the case does not proceed to a full hearing, the court must refuse any remedy to the applicant if that same test is satisfied.
The proposal is objectionable for constitutional reasons. The clause will instruct judges to ignore unlawful conduct and to do so in a context where the government itself is the main defendant.
All governments come to resent the power of the judiciary to identify and remedy unlawful conduct. But until now they have, with greater or lesser enthusiasm, recognised the value of what is central to the rule of law. After all, they will not be in power indefinitely…It tells the Government, and the world, that what has been done is unlawful. Ministers and civil servants know that they must change their conduct for the future, and they do so.”
He concludes the article by stating:
“Over the past 40 years, judicial review has helped to prevent abuse of power by governments of all complexions. It is ironic that judicial review now needs protection from a politician whose reforms would neuter its force by the use of political slogans that have no factual basis and are ignorant of legal and constitutional principle.”
Those are strong words from an expert in the field. I think that we would do well to take them on board and consider their purport.
The timetabling of the Bill is also a little confusing. Although it is having its Second Reading today, we must assume that its introduction has been orchestrated so that it will be carried over at the end of the Session, no doubt to make the Government appear proactive and to mask the fact that so few significant pieces of Government legislation remain.
Dr Huppert
The right hon. Gentleman, as ever, is making some interesting points, but is he really saying that the test of a Government is the number of pieces of legislation they pass? I would have thought that he, like me, thinks that Parliament has much more to do than simply pass legislation.
Mr Llwyd
No, I am not saying that. In fact, I was a long-time critic of the Blair Administration, who introduced criminal Bills almost every teatime. That is not a test at all. Also, several measures that the Justice Secretary referred to in his opening speech today are rehashes of various things we have seen in the press over the past few months. All I am saying is that when a Government run out of steam, the benchmark is not how many pieces of legislation they pass—otherwise, heaven knows where we would end up.
I am mindful that other Members wish to speak and so will try not to detain the House for long. Part 1 of the Bill creates a number of offences, many of which are considered unnecessary at best and, at worst, vindictive provisions that are likely to increase the prison population considerably. Clause 4 introduces a drastic change to release arrangements for offenders serving extended determinate sentences, who are currently entitled to automatic release after they have served two thirds of their sentence. Instead, they will now be required to appear before the Parole Board so that it can assess whether they are fit to be released on licence.
It is important to note that extended determinate sentences were enacted by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, a very recent piece of legislation. That is not the only example in the Bill of the Government seeking to amend provisions introduced by their own justice Bills. Extended determinate sentences from the outset increased the minimum tariff a person was required to spend in custody from half of their sentence to two thirds. By stipulating that offenders will also have to satisfy the Parole Board before being considered for release, the amount of time that is available for supervision and rehabilitation back into the community is further decreased.
Furthermore, the Government appear to have drastically underestimated the impact those changes will have on the Parole Board’s resources and the size of the prison population. In their impact assessment, the Government predict that the changes introduced in clauses 1 to 5 will result in an increase of 1,000 prison places and an increase of 1,100 Parole Board hearings per year between implementation and 2030. The Prison Reform Trust has written to Members of Parliament urging us to seek clarification from the Government on how they calculate these figures. After all, the Government of the time underestimated the impact that IPP sentences—indeterminate sentences for public protection—would have on the prison population. When those sentences were first debated in Parliament—I recall the debates—the Government were insistent that the new sentence would increase the prison population by 900 places. By June 2013, 5,620 offenders were still in custody serving the now-abolished IPP sentences, 3,549 of whom were being held beyond their tariff date. The impact on the operation of the Parole Board has been nothing short of overwhelming. In August 2013, the backlog of cases still awaiting hearings by the Parole Board was 1,352, with IPP offenders accounting for 61% of indeterminate review cases. Yet the Government think it apposite to increase the workload of the Parole Board yet again by introducing changes to the automatic release of offenders—and this at a time when Parole Board staff numbers have been reduced by nearly one in five.
The release test for recalled prisoners provided for in clauses 7 and 8 will similarly place an extra burden on the beleaguered Parole Board. At present, recalled offenders serving determinate sentences undergo a fixed-term recall whereby they serve 28 days in custody and are then automatically released. Under clauses 7 and 8, however, these offenders will serve the remainder of their sentence in custody if the Secretary of State determines that an offender is likely to breach a condition of their licence. The Parole Board would need to conduct a release test before certifying that the offender can in fact be released. The Prison Reform Trust has drawn attention to the fact that this pays scant regard to the peculiar circumstances of offenders with learning disabilities and mental health problems, many of whom find it difficult to understand the terms of their licence.
Once again, the Government’s estimate of how many offenders will be affected by this change seems worryingly off the mark. The impact assessment calculates that the change will result in 75 offenders per year being affected and an extra 50 prison places being required. However, this blatantly fails to take into account the likely impact of the changes being introduced concurrently by the Government’s Offender Rehabilitation Bill, still being considered by the other place, which will result in mandatory supervision being given to all offenders serving sentences of 12 months or less. The impact assessment for that Bill estimates that 13,000 extra offenders will be recalled or committed to custody each year, with an increase of 1,600 places in the prison population. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified how the Ministry of Justice has calculated that so few offenders will be affected by the combined impact of this Bill and the Offender Rehabilitation Bill.
Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to use the affirmative resolution procedure in order to change the release test for recalled prisoners serving determinate sentences. I am worried that the Government are proposing to use secondary legislation to implement such a significant change, and I hope that they will reconsider this provision ahead of the Bill’s Committee stage.
Clauses 10 and 11 introduce a new statutory offence of being unlawfully at large following a recall to custody. This would be triable either way and could result in a convicted offender being imprisoned for up to two years. Once again, the Government seem to have omitted any safeguard for vulnerable offenders with learning disabilities or mental health problems that would impair their ability to understand the full terms of their release. It would be beneficial if the Government inserted such a safeguard ahead of the Bill’s later stages. For example, it would be useful if the Bill made a distinction between offenders who abscond wilfully and those who do not report as a result of a misunderstanding or a miscommunication. According to research conducted by the Prison Reform Trust in 2007, between 20% and 30% of offenders were estimated to have a learning disability that affected their ability to cope with the complexities of the criminal justice system and the co-operation expected of them. During debates on the Offender Rehabilitation Bill in the other place, the Government pledged to produce special versions of licence conditions for individuals with learning difficulties. I would welcome the Minister’s assurance that they intend to keep true to that pledge, and indeed any other provisions that they will be making for vulnerable offenders so that they can understand what actions are strictly required of them.
My final point on part 1 concerns the new offence introduced in clause 16 that criminalises the possession of pornographic materials depicting rape and non-consensual sexual penetration. I truly applaud the Government’s efforts in this regard to minimise the use and dissemination of extreme pornographic materials, and particularly the work they are doing to minimise the opportunities for children to come into contact with this filth. In my view, however, there can be no benefit to society or to the individuals involved if persons convicted of sex offences are left languishing in prison without treatment or, worse, released into the community without treatment. I welcome what the Government are doing, but ask them to go one step further in ensuring that these perpetrators are dealt with positively, if that is the right word.
Although the internet sex offender treatment programme is available for offenders on supervision in the community, it is, rather perplexingly, not available in prisons. In relation to the availability of the sex offender treatment programmes which, conversely, are available in custody, I understand that as of July 2012, 21 prisons offered these programmes, despite the fact that offenders are serving time in relation to sex offences in over 100 prisons. This means that a person convicted of a sex offence has roughly only a one-in-six chance of being able to access treatment that would address his or her offending behaviour. I urge the Government to improve their provision of treatment programmes for these offenders before incarcerating yet more for similar offences.
In summary, the changes in part 1 will result in greater overcrowding of the prison estate and a greater burden being placed on the Parole Board, despite no mention being made, at least as yet, of any extra resources being allocated to deal with this increase. The proposals appear to be rushed and ill thought out, and I hope they do not end up being shambolic, but I would not be surprised. I urge the Government to reconsider the motivation behind these new offences before the Bill reaches its later stages.
I wish to make a few remarks about the changes to youth custody introduced in part 2. The proposal to introduce new secure colleges for children aged 12 to 17, which would be implemented by the passing of clauses 17 to 19, was first published in a recent consultation entitled “Transforming Youth Custody”. I agree with the views posited by the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust that the introduction of secure colleges may result in an increase in custodial sentencing for young offenders and longer sentences being handed out. I am particularly concerned that clause 18 would allow for these secure colleges to be contracted out to private companies, and that under the terms of schedule 4 those companies will be granted the opportunity to use reasonable force and restraint to enforce “good order and discipline”.
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman refers to contracting out to private companies. It is worth putting on record that the expertise we want to see in those running secure colleges is educational expertise. That skill does not exist within the public sector, and we need to bring it in from those who have real expertise in education and training. I would not want the door to be closed on that for ideological reasons.
Mr Llwyd
I hear what the Secretary of State says. He also said earlier that this will basically be a college, but with a fence around it. I accept that and hope that that is what will happen. That is fine, but I will mention in passing that the director of the Howard League for Penal Reform has said that she is concerned that
“restraining children for not doing what they are told is dangerous and gives the erroneous lesson that might is right.”
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child posited in 2007:
“Restraint or force can be used only when the child poses an imminent threat of injury to him or herself or others, and only when all other means of control have been exhausted.”
I will accept at face value what the Secretary of State has said and I hope this will result in a benign regime that will be useful to the individuals concerned in turning them away from further misbehaviour and criminal behaviour.
Will the Government make clear what inspection arrangements will be made for the proposed secure colleges? The Magistrates Association has argued that if the running of secure colleges is to be contracted out to private companies, they must be given specific targets and must be rigorously inspected. I would also point out that, at present, neither the Bill nor the explanatory notes make any mention of what provision will be made for girls in the secure colleges—a point that has already been raised by other Members. I am sure that the Minister, in closing, will be able to tell the House what the inspection regime will be. Will it partly involve the Education Department, and what provision will be made for young women and girls under the new set-up?
Finally, I wish to make a few remarks about the proposals in part 3, which would impose court charges on defendants in criminal cases. Clauses 29 and 30 stipulate that, in setting charges, the Lord Chancellor should have regard to a number of factors, including whether a defendant pleaded guilty and thus whether they proceeded to trial. As Justice has pointed out, the imposition of such a charge may perversely incentivise defendants to plead guilty so as to avoid paying higher charges, and so undermine the presumption of innocence. That is certainly not fanciful, because defendants I have come across in my professional career were more keen on finding out what the cost would be at the end of the day than anything else. That may seem strange, but it is true.
It is also possible that further charges will be brought against an individual if he or she pursues an appeal, which would place another barrier to fair and equal access to justice. As Justice points out, restricting an individual’s access to a court or tribunal could well be incompatible with article 6(1) of the European convention on human rights. A thorough impact assessment should also be made of the impact of bringing the proposed charges against any defendant, to ensure that it is reasonable and just to do so in all the circumstances.
The Magistrates Association has argued that courts should be given discretion in deciding whether to impose the fees, so as to ensure that it is both appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances. After all, the Government should not ignore the fact that prisoners—and defendants, in fact—are far more likely to be in financial difficulty than members of the general public. According to figures recorded in the “Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile” of August 2013, 68% of prisoners were unemployed in the four weeks prior to custody and 13% have never had a job, compared with 3.9% of the general population.
In summary, the Bill introduces changes that will increase the already stretched prison population and place undoubted further burdens on the Parole Board. It is highly disappointing that instead of working to encourage rehabilitation, the Government have chosen to introduce new criminal offences and to curtail the release of prisoners. They have also chosen to use this justice Bill as a vehicle for implementing ill-considered changes to youth custody, but I accept what the Secretary of State has said and await further detail. The priority surely must be that people are dealt with and rehabilitated properly and that the public are protected.
It is my belief that nothing is being done in this Bill to tackle the root causes of crime or to help victims, which should be the driving force of any criminal Bill. The problem, of course, is that the larger parties, as always, are dancing to the tabloid drumbeat. It is virtually impossible to have a sensible discussion in this place about penal policy, because of our friends at the tabloids. That is regrettable, but I am afraid it is a fact. All in all, there are many things in this Bill that need to be put right in Committee and I hope that hon. Members from all parties will consider it their duty to do so over the coming weeks.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Unlike the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), I welcome many of the sensible provisions in the Bill. These amendments to the operation of the law seem to me to make common sense.
I am not sure whether I understood the Opposition’s point about judicial review. If we accept that there has been a threefold increase in the number of applications for judicial review since 2000, are the Opposition making the case that there is nothing wrong with judicial review procedures or the way in which they are being used, or are they saying that there has been an increase in the number of poor-quality decisions by the Government and other public bodies? If the latter, the Opposition would be conceding that that happened largely on their watch. If we accept that there has been a very large rise, surely it makes sense to make a number of careful changes that will ensure that the system operates as intended, which is not to provide a vehicle for those who simply object to a decision and wish to test it in an alternative body—in this case, a court—but to ensure that decisions are made properly and subjected to the right and appropriate judicial scrutiny.
Sadiq Khan
I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, because he is usually thorough in his research. He should be aware that if we exclude immigration from judicial review, we will see that the situation has been static since the 1990s. A Bill passed 18 months ago by this Government moved immigration from judicial review to the tribunal system, so the problem they are seeking to address was dealt with nearly two years ago.
Nick Herbert
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be confirming that he does not believe that there is a problem, but that view is not shared on the Government Benches. In our view, the increase in the extent of judicial review does not just impose a cost—which is a serious matter in itself—but also means, dangerously, that decisions by the courts are increasingly substituting for decisions that should be made by Ministers, which was not the original purpose or intention of judicial review.
In his closing remarks, the right hon. Gentleman railed similarly against previous measures introduced by this Government to deal with legal aid and said there had been restrictions on access to justice. The Opposition’s problem is that they are very quick to criticise every proposal in the area of justice and criminal justice that is designed to ensure a sensible use of public funds and necessary savings. They are not able to explain how they would deal with the very real budgetary challenges that confront every Government Department, not least the Ministry of Justice, which has been required to make substantial savings. If, along the way, the Opposition oppose every measure and criticise sensible provisions such as that under discussion without saying how they would make the savings required, they simply have a credibility problem.
I welcome the Government’s proposals to deal with the problem of automatic early release and, in particular, the scale of the Justice Secretary’s ambition to go further in doing so. There is no doubt that automatic early release undermines public confidence in sentencing. When victims in particular, but also members of the public more widely, hear a sentence handed down in a court but later learn that offenders are, without question, automatically released much earlier—halfway, or earlier in the case of home detention curfew, which is described as early release—it undermines confidence in the system.
It would be much better to move to a system of honesty in sentencing, in which the sentence handed down bears a proper relation to the one actually served, whether that is a system of minimum and maximum sentences, as proposed by the Conservative party in its last manifesto, or sensible measures to curtail automatic early release of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary has just introduced for more serious offences. We should not accept the principle of automatic early release; it would be much better if release were earned and bore some relation to the prisoner’s conduct, progress in rehabilitation and suitability for release.
Even Members of the House of Commons find it difficult to understand or accept the early release of offenders. Many of us noted with surprise that when the courts handed down to a former Member a determinate sentence of eight months, we had no sooner said the words “Liberal Democrat” than that offender was released early, in that case to serve a period on home detention curfew and, subsequently, to enjoy a new career writing articles for The Guardian. All that undermines confidence in the criminal justice system.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. To take him back to his more serious point, does he agree that linking the sentence and early release to passing drugs tests for a drug addict or to passing a literary examination or literacy tests is very much the way we should go?
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend is right to bring me back to my serious point, and I wholly agree with him. That is exactly the way we should go, and that is what I meant by the concept of earned release.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making a very good point. I have listened to him carefully. Is it not fairer that a person who has committed a crime should serve two years, say, but that if they do not satisfy proper criteria, the sentence would be three years? The public would then totally understand the sentence.
Nick Herbert
That is what I meant by the concept of having minimum and maximum sentences. There would still be a determinate sentence with a maximum term—it would not be an indeterminate sentence, which is reserved for much more serious crimes—but release after the minimum point would nevertheless depend on fulfilling certain conditions, including those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman).
I particularly welcome the measures relating to the electronic monitoring of offenders and provisions for the greater use of tagging for the supervision of offenders released from custody. There is no doubt that the advance of technology and the use of satellite tracking mean that a huge and so far largely untapped potential exists to ensure greater confidence in the criminal justice system and enable the safe and secure monitoring of offenders. Whether that is for offenders who receive some kind of curfew as part of their sentence, or whether the purpose is to ensure their safe and effective supervision on release, much more could be done, and has already been done in other countries.
There are two particular lessons. The first is that we should question how quickly the criminal justice system can embrace new technology. The criminal justice system is very centralised, which does not always make it easy to have local innovation in its operation, whether in relation to how certain courts operate—I will come on to that—or to this use of technology. As the Secretary of State knows, some very impressive pilot schemes have been conducted by Hertfordshire police in relation to satellite tagging.
There is, however, a feeling that we have been slow, perhaps unnecessarily slow, to ensure that such technology is made available to other police forces or is used more widely. That is partly because of the understandable caution that results from a determination to ensure that technology is used properly and that public safety remains paramount, but it is also partly because of the centralised nature of the system and the bias against innovation.
If we want a greater use of such technology, we must move towards a system that is more distributed, and in which local criminal justice innovation is encouraged. Through a more decentralised system, we have such opportunities. For instance, police and crime commissioners, who are keen to take on such a role, could supervise its use to ensure that there was some kind of local democratic accountability.
Guy Opperman
I entirely endorse my right hon. Friend’s point that localisation is surely the key to driving up the performance of the system and to improving it. Does he agree that the Ministry of Justice—we all acknowledge that this monolithic beast is exceptionally hard to tame and alter—could follow examples in other places, such as Norway, where there are community prisons and a much more localised approach to criminal justice reform?
Nick Herbert
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Having been a Minister in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, I recognise that Ministers face the challenge of having an imperative to ensure public safety, and an imperative to drive value for money and ensure that contracts are written in such a way as to provide best value for the taxpayer. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity to decentralise and to be more open about the potential use of technology to innovate in the justice system.
The second lesson about the use of electronic tagging in criminal justice and the provision very sensibly set out in the Bill is that technology is not necessarily our enemy or the enemy of justice. In debates in this place and outside, technological advance is too often seen as some kind of enemy of justice and of the public. In fact, the advent of technology has been responsible for incredibly important strides in the delivery of a justice system that works for the public.
The same debates apply to electronic monitoring as apply to the use of CCTV, the development of the DNA database or other things raising civil liberties questions that must be addressed. For instance, how far is it appropriate to go in restricting the civil liberties of those to whom such sentences are handed down, even though they are convicted criminals? We must remember that they have been convicted, and that the alternative is a custodial sentence or, if they are not to be released, a continuing term in custody. Far from posing any kind of threat to civil liberties, such technology presents a real opportunity to protect the public. We should sometimes accept that the use of technology in the criminal justice system can be the public’s friend and can help to ensure that the interests of justice are served.
Keith Vaz
I agree about the use of technology, but, as the saga of G4S and Serco has demonstrated, in handing over contracts to private sector companies, sometimes we trust them too much. Those companies were overbilling the Government. We have to monitor such contracts, ensure that there are benchmarks and be very careful when we hand over public money.
Nick Herbert
As ever, I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. That is an issue of accountability. We must ensure that contracts are written properly. The behaviour of some companies has been appalling and they should be held to account. There were also problems with the earlier trials of satellite tracking technology and there have been problems with use of simpler electronic monitoring. However, the technology can be made to work effectively and those who deliver the contracts can be held properly to account.
The potential benefits to public safety and, as we have heard, to criminals, who may find that they are no longer constantly approached by the police as a suspect in other investigations because it can quickly be established that they were nowhere near the scene of the crime, are too great to dismiss. We have an opportunity to introduce curfewing and semi-custodial sentences into our criminal justice system in a way that was not possible before. We can make the effective supervision of offenders outside a custodial environment a reality and we should embrace that.
I welcome the changes that the Justice Secretary is proposing to out-of-court disposals in the Bill. Many Government Members and observers of the criminal justice system have long been concerned that the growth of out-of-court disposals has led to problems. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary produced an important report on this matter a number of years ago, in which it identified the repeated use of certain out-of-court disposals and their inappropriate use for serious offences as a cause for concern. I commend the Justice Secretary for acting on that and making sensible changes to simple cautions in the Bill to ensure that they are not used inappropriately. Again, we can debate the nature of the proposals, but the direction of travel is exactly right.
The growth of administrative justice—for that is what it is—has a place. The previous Government described it as a programme of summary justice, but it is a programme of administrative justice whereby, without recourse to any kind of court, disposals are handed out on the spot. Although it has a place, we must ensure that it does not get out of hand.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) mentioned, the use of administrative disposals peaked in 2007, driven by the unwise target to bring offences to justice. There was a famous case close to my constituency in which a police officer found a corpse hanging from a tree. In the pocket of the corpse was a penknife. The police officer attempted to record the offence of possession of an offensive weapon. It was very unlikely that the corpse would have used the knife in a dangerous manner. That was due to the target culture that drove the growth of administrative disposals. That culture has fallen away, but the proportion of disposals that are out-of-court disposals is still twice as high as it was a decade ago. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is important that such disposals are used appropriately.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a problem of unforeseen consequences? One reason such disposals are used widely by the police is that it is so difficult and time consuming to put together the MG forms to bring a case to court. The temptation is always to dispose of a case out of court if it is at all possible.
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend speaks from his experience as a special constable. What he says is certainly the case. One of the dangers of using the growth in administrative justice as a solution was that the previous Government took their eye off the important task of dealing with the bureaucracy in the criminal justice system as a whole and making it more efficient, so that cases that had to be brought before the courts could be brought before them swiftly and effectively. I therefore welcome the proposals to deal with the problem of simple cautions being used wrongly.
The growth in administrative justice should give us pause to reflect on the proper role today of the important institution that is the lay magistracy. I was struck by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who, when he was courts Minister, had the difficult responsibility of closing a number of under-utilised magistrates courts. There is no doubt that magistrates have faced challenges owing to a reduction in business, which was caused originally by the growth in administrative disposals and has been partly caused by the reduction in the level of crime and by cases being taken by professional district judges, rather than by traditional magistrates courts. All those factors have led to the magistracy feeling undervalued.
Although I welcome the proposals in clause 24 for single justice procedures, which are entirely commonsensical in respect of high-volume, uncontroversial cases in which there are guilty pleas, I believe we should think further about the right role for the magistracy in the operation of the summary justice system. That will be particularly important if the budgetary position with which the Ministry of Justice is confronted means that there have to be continuing court rationalisations. The development of new justice hubs and centres is not necessarily a bad thing. They can be fit for purpose and very useful, but they also mean that magistrates sit further from the communities from which they are drawn.
Guy Opperman
I speak as someone who battled my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) over the closure of Hexham magistrates court, even though I understood why it was being done and the difficult circumstances that existed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as we get centralised hubs of magistracy, we must ensure that there is a resident rural magistrate who understands that matters 50 miles away from the city are often greatly different from crimes that take place in the city itself?
Nick Herbert
My hon. Friend, who represents a very rural constituency, makes an interesting point that leads on to the suggestion that I want to make. I wonder whether there is a role for the magistracy outside the formal setting of the courts in respect of less controversial offences, so that we can retain the presence of magistrates in communities. As we move towards the use of justice hubs and as traditional courts are closed, we should consider that.
A similar proposal was made last week in an interesting paper, “Future Courts”, by the Policy Exchange think-tank. The paper picked up on proposals that were made in a Government paper that was published in 2012, “Swift and Sure Justice”, for which I had responsibility. We were very drawn to the way in which the criminal justice system had operated rapidly to deal with the offences that were committed during the riots of the previous year, and we started to question whether a leaner and more efficient justice system could be developed. I urge the Government to consider the potential of involving magistrates in a programme of neighbourhood justice. That would ensure that they are retained in their local communities.
Neighbourhood justice panels are an interesting development in the area of restorative justice. Many Members from all parts of the House believe that they have great potential in dealing with low-level offending. Only last month, the Lord Chief Justice expressed the view that magistrates should play a formal role in neighbourhood justice panels and that they should not be a separate tier of justice.
The magistracy is an institution that has been with us for six and a half centuries, and as the late Lord Bingham said, it is a “democratic jewel beyond price”. If we are moving towards greater use of technology, the potential for justice to be delivered remotely, and individuals not having to be in a formal court setting, we have the opportunity to ensure that justice can be delivered locally, without having to be delivered administratively. We can still have confidence that somebody appointed from the community who exercises a judicial—not administrative—function, is dealing with offenders. That is a potential way to rebuild the magistracy and tackle the growth of administrative justice and the excessive use of out-of-court disposals, and a powerful way to rekindle the notion of neighbourhood justice. I hope that the Government, who welcomed the Policy Exchange report as an interesting contribution, will take that on board.
In conclusion, as with so many other areas of public policy, the urge to centralise and rationalise into ever bigger units is great when it comes to delivering greater value for money. We see that in policing with those who urge us to create regional police forces, in health care with those who urge us to create ever greater units with larger hospitals and so on, and we face such pressures across our public services. Such rationalisations need not be a bad thing if innovative ways are found to deliver services at local level, and technology is an enabler of that. What undermines confidence in the process, however, is when a salami-slicing approach results merely in services being centralised for cost reasons, without any rethinking or redesigning of how they can be delivered at local level. Let us enable that innovation, localise, have confidence in the new democratic institutions we have created at local level that can hold the criminal justice system to account, and—above all—let us value the lay magistracy as an institution that has served this country so well over a long time.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) who served as a distinguished Minister in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. It is still a puzzle to me why he is not in the Government, because I know they could use his considerable skills. He obviously enjoys being on the Back Benches more, even though we miss his appearances before the Home Affairs Committee.
I was fascinated by the exchange between the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), but the House did not get to know what happened at the end of those discussions, and whether Hexham magistrates court is still open. Did the hon. Member for Hexham win his battle? He is my next-door neighbour in Norman Shaw North, and I need to know whether he wins such battles with the Government.
Guy Opperman
Despite 20 years of advocacy and despite what I felt was a very strong case, my youthful appearance in this House, and a vigorous campaign, the fact that the magistracy was not able to survive in the rural town of Hexham for the first time in 500 years was sadly a fact in the end. To be fair, the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the system is working relatively well with an urban core, but the Ministry of Justice—which is, of course, not at all a bureaucratic or difficult organisation to get control of—should be aware that although it is working, we do need a rural element in the magistracy going forward.
Keith Vaz
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that long explanation. I am surprised that he lost the battle, but I know he will continue with it.
When I was the sole Justice Minister in the Ministry of Justice—then the Lord Chancellor’s Department—I felt that the work load was quite high. We now have four Commons Ministers representing the Ministry of Justice, and of course it has taken on new responsibilities. I congratulate the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) on his appointment. I think this is his first Second Reading debate; I do not know whether he will be winding up—
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
indicated dissent.
Keith Vaz
Then I admire his patience in sitting through the entire debate and I wish him well in his ministerial career. I am not sure whether, had he got to the Ministry of Justice before the Bill was signed off, he might have opposed some of these points.
I will start by raising a few concerns. I agree with the shadow Lord Chancellor that there are some good parts of the Bill, and I hope that we can make it better between now and it becoming law, should the House decide to support it. I have about five points to make, the first of which concerns judicial review. The previous Labour Government were embarrassed on a number of occasions when they lost judicial review challenges, and I believe it is extremely important that that remains an avenue of choice for those who feel that the justice system does not provide them with the kinds of solutions they need to their problems.
In particular, I am thinking about those who face difficult immigration cases, who have seen the right of appeal taken from them—not by the Ministry of Justice but by the Home Office—and who now face only the prospect of applications for judicial review to bring their cases to the attention of those who make such decisions. I agree that there are many frivolous cases, and many people go forward and make judicial review applications, sometimes for the sheer hell of it. It is right that citizens should use this power carefully, but once we take away the right of appeal in immigration cases, we leave people with no choice other than to apply for judicial review. That is why we have seen an increase in judicial review over the past few years.
David T. C. Davies
Have the Government had to consider this matter because with the encouragement of various—dare I say it?—left-wing non-governmental organisations, people who clearly had no right whatsoever to be in this country were able to put in one appeal after another and be legally funded all the way through? Is it not about time the taxpayer had a bit of representation as well?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman served on the Home Affairs Committee and therefore knows how the Home Office deals with such cases. If we were satisfied that decision making was robust and that entry clearance officers and those who reviewed their decisions always made the right decision, we would not need a right of appeal. As he knows, however, having sat through the Committee’s deliberations, 50% of appeals on immigration cases are won by the applicant. That does not mean that judges are cleverer than entry clearance officers, but it does mean that decisions have not been looked at carefully enough. If we take away that right of appeal, all people will have is the ability to challenge in the courts. Of course I do not believe it right for people to play the system and have multiple appeals, but if we take away the last vestige by which they can challenge decisions, we will leave them with absolutely no choice.
As I said, the previous Government suffered because they tried to stop citizens marrying foreign citizens in our courts. They were taken to court and judicially reviewed, and the court said, “You cannot do this”. Spouses had to go back and make applications, but the previous Government—as successive Governments have done—lost a number of such applications. I think we should look carefully at this issue. On its own it may not seem like a bad idea, but if we take away the right of appeal in immigration cases, as section 11 of the Immigration Bill does, that will create a number of problems. After all, 32% of deportation decisions and 49% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year. We must look carefully at the issue.
Guy Opperman
I served on the Immigration Public Bill Committee and the overwhelming view was that, yes, the Home Office needs to get better—with respect, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is getting better at reviewing under the appellant procedures—but the fundamental point is that it cannot be right for there to be in excess of a dozen, and potentially up to 15 or 16, separate rights of appeal. The state, in the form of the Home Office and the Government, is right to review the number of times an appellant can go through the appellant process.
Keith Vaz
I have no objection to that. I agree with the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) that we do not want multiple applications, but we should at least give people the chance of one application. It is not the case that they get legal aid right the way through. Many of my constituents come to me wanting to go to judicial review. I tell them that their best course of action is to leave the country and make an application from abroad. They will go through a better system and obtain a quicker result than they would by constantly staying here and going through the courts again and again.
Guy Opperman
With great respect, the implication of the last comment is that there is no right of appeal whatever in an immigration case. I am sure that that is not what the right hon. Gentleman meant to say.
Keith Vaz
The right of appeal will be taken away by clause 11 of the Immigration Bill. An application can, of course, be made in certain circumstances, but my understanding is that that Bill will reduce dramatically the occasions on which the Government can be judicially reviewed. We heard that from the Lord Chancellor earlier. He was quite delighted and thought it was a very good idea. I prefer that these decisions are taken by judges rather than by civil servants.
The hon. Gentleman has been a Parliamentary Private Secretary for the past four years, so of course he welcomes the improvements made by the Government. That period is too long and he too should be serving in the Government and I hope I have not damned his career by saying that. He has spent enough time dealing with civil servants. If he thought they were the most perfect creatures on this earth, we might as well hand over everything to them, let the officials decide and not give people the right to go to court. All I say is this: let us be cautious. The Government should look at this in the round and be sure that people have some avenues left to challenge decisions.
On new technology, I agree with the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, the former Home Office Minister. When he was in the Home Office, he led the campaign for new technology. He is a Twitter person. On one occasion, he tweeted to ask me to go to the airport to meet him, as I had done with other members of the Select Committee—I agreed to do so, but he would not tell me his flight number—so I know that he likes new technology. The fact is that we need to be careful about allowing Ministers and officials to make decisions on new technology that they do not understand. He will remember the e-Borders project, which has so far cost the taxpayer £750 million. It was agreed without benchmarks and the litigation is still going on—it is still costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money. We should have new technology and we should pursue this programme, but we need to be very careful and very cautious not to hand everything over to those who come to us and say that they know everything. That is what happened under the previous Government in relation to G4S and Serco, and that has continued under this Government. As we now know, G4S overcharged the Government by £24.1 million. We will need a more extensive use of tagging, but if the tagging companies are not monitored, the contracts will not be properly dealt with and properly monitored. I hope that, in making better use of technology, we ensure that we have the accountability that the right hon. Gentleman and I have been talking about.
On the creation of a secure college, my worry is that we need to be very clear on what powers those who run the college will have. It sounds like a very good idea and we want to make sure that people spend more time in training. However, of the 16 deaths of children in custody since 2000, all occurred in youth offenders institutions and secure training centres. We need to learn the lessons of the deaths of those young people before we set up new institutions that are not capable of proper scrutiny. The Bill will allow a secure college custody officer to use reasonable force to ensure good order and discipline. It is important that we look at training and do not have any unfortunate incidents that result in the death or injury to young people in custody.
Drugs are a big problem, as we have discovered in Home Affairs Committee inquiries. Many young offenders acquire a drug habit when they are in institutions. I will give another plug to the book, which I have on my desk, by the hon. Member for Hexham. I am sure that all Ministers in the Ministry of Justice have read it. I am sure that the new Minister will have had in his briefing a copy of the book on rehabilitation written by the hon. Member for Hexham. If he has not read it, I will make sure that he gets a copy, because the hon. Gentleman is my next-door neighbour. There is very sensible stuff in the book, including the fact that people pick up the habit of taking drugs when they are in prison. That is why we believe there should be mandatory testing.
Guy Opperman
The book, “Doing Time” is actually still available. Amazingly, there are a few copies left. I hasten to add, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all proceeds go to charity.
The serious point is this: the right hon. Gentleman, who served in the previous Government with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), will recall that in 2008, when he was the police and justice Minister, he was asked a specific question. I cannot, off the top of my head, quote Hansard, but he indicated that evidence from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice showed that 20% of all people who took drugs in prison acquired the habit for the first time in prison.
Keith Vaz
That is a stunning figure, one that has probably remained the same, or even increased, in the past few years. That is why we suggest there should be mandatory testing in prison and after people leave prison. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) does not like that idea. Whenever I raise it at Justice questions, he is never enthusiastic about it and thinks his system is better, but such testing would be a good thing.
I hope the new secure college will run sufficient courses. We will not write the curriculum right now, but let us ensure that as well as providing the basic education for young people that they so desperately need—another theme in the book by the hon. Member for Hexham—we teach them the dangers of drugs and try to get them off drugs.
I am a little concerned about the punitive elements in paragraph 2 of schedule 15, amending the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The figures show that 72% of male and 70% female sentenced prisoners suffer from two or more related mental health disorders. It may not be appropriate for them to be punished in a similar way to others. We must try to identify those who have a mental illness and end up in the criminal justice system and remain in it for years. In September, the Select Committee will undertake an inquiry into how the police deal—I say to the Chair of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), that we are not treading on his toes—with offenders with mental health disorders and see how that feeds into the rest of the criminal justice system. The figures are very worrying. We want to be tough and to punish people, but we need to remember that there are reasons why we perhaps should not send people to prison.
The Director of Public Prosecutions announced this morning that she would deploy six specialist lawyers abroad—in Dubai and in one or two other places—in an attempt to seize more assets from criminals linked to British cases. I welcome that announcement, because I think that we need to strengthen the way in which we investigate and then charge those who move their assets abroad. According to the National Audit Office, 80% of the £920 million owed by convicted millionaire criminals is yet to be repaid. My mathematics is not perfect, but I think that 80% of £920 million is nearly £850 million. Is that right, Madam Deputy Speaker? You seem to think that it is about right; you have probably been helping your son with his maths. Anyway, it is a huge amount of money.
We try to challenge the Mr Bigs, and the Mrs Bigs. They go through the criminal justice system, we fine them huge amounts of money, and then we find that about £150 million less than £1 billion has still not been collected. The Bill does not deal with that situation. I hope that, if it believes in joined-up government, the Ministry of Justice will look carefully at the DPP’s statement, and that amendments will be tabled in Committee to ensure that when judges fine billionaires and multi-millionaires, those people pay up. At present they simply go through the system, come out of prison and then disappear, and we suffer because our justice system has allowed them to get away with it.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I am very pleased to follow my fellow Select Committee Chairman, whose wise and thoughtful comments have, I think, raised the level of the debate to where the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) wanted it to be. I am not sure that the mental arithmetic of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is quite up to scratch, but I am sure that he can improve on it with a little practice.
The Bill contains many provisions, covering matters ranging from misconduct by jurors to automatic release, and I have no intention of commenting on all of them. However, I will make one passing comment on the issue of trial “on the papers”, which strikes me as a perfectly sensible way of dealing with summary offences of a minor character involving guilty pleas when the defendant was not going to be present anyway. It is important for the public record to be clear and immediately accessible, and I hope that we can find a way of ensuring that that happens. There should be no secret justice; it should be readily apparent what sentences have been handed out by the courts, and to whom.
I want to concentrate on three issues. The first is the issue of the simple police caution, along with the wider issue of out-of-court disposals of which it is part. The Government’s consultation on out-of-court disposals ended in January, and I should be interested to know when they will respond to it. I think that the magistrates were right to be concerned about the dangers of inconsistency around the country, and about the fact that people did not really know what was happening. However, I also think that there is real value in police officers’ ability to exercise discretion in many circumstances, and that out-of-court disposals, as a broad group, open up numerous possibilities, including possibilities for simple restorative justice.
Restorative justice exists in many forms. Obviously it exists in post-sentence form, but there are simple kinds of restorative justice which I have experienced in my constituency. In the past, a police sergeant would say to an offender “The best thing that you can do is go to the person whose property you have damaged, give that person money to pay for the damage that you have caused, apologise, and ask whether there is any way in which you can help to make good what you have done.” Such measures are worth developing as part of neighbourhood justice.
I do not want the necessary codifying of the system of cautions to be seen as in any way discouraging the use of alternatives to traditional court procedures. As was suggested earlier, magistrates can be involved in the process. The Justice Committee visited Stockport recently, and observed that magistrates had been involved in a number of developments in the Greater Manchester probation area. When I asked why they were not hostile to those developments, the answer was that they had been involved from the start. I do not want us in any way to undermine the scope for out-of-traditional-court disposals in matters of this kind, because they may offer the best opportunity to enable young people, in particular, to move away from crime rather than becoming institutionalised into it.
The Union flag that flies outside my constituency office on the Queen’s birthday and other state occasions was once torn down by some people who then rather unwisely boasted about having done so, and were therefore quickly picked up by the police. The friendly sergeant instructed them to put together the money necessary to replace the flag and to write a letter of apology, which they all did. At least one of them was planning to go into the Army, and the sergeant pointed out that that person would not want to start off with a criminal record. It was a very sensible way of dealing with the matter.
The second issue that I want to raise is that of secure colleges. I do not think that there is any disagreement with the Government’s objective in that regard. A clear indicator of the likelihood of reoffending is a lack of basic education and skills. The evidence for that is overwhelming, and I think that the Government are right to focus attention—and, indeed, resources—on the provision of basic education for young people who have been caught up in the criminal justice system.
Sir Alan Beith
I will, although I want to raise a number of points that the hon. Gentleman may wish to follow.
Guy Opperman
May I compliment the right hon. Gentleman on what he has said so far? Does he agree that there is potential for secure colleges to be run not just by the state, but by individual institutions, churches or charities? Academies have transformed education, and there is surely no reason why academy-style secure colleges could not be established in the longer term.
Sir Alan Beith
That sounds like an attractive idea. However, there are some problems to which I do not yet see a solution, although I agree with my neighbour from Hexham that plenty of people in both the charity sector and the private sector have something to contribute to the process.
The first problem, which was identified by my Committee, is that the average length of custody is 79 days. That is not a period in which a programme of education can be developed, and greatly extending periods of custody is not part of the Government’s policy. Secondly, people going into custody do not do so neatly at the beginning of a term or an academic year; they go when the courts have sentenced them. It is difficult to provide a range of basic educational courses for people who go into custody for relatively short periods and at different times, and it involves paying a price. Some of those people will be much further away from their local communities than they would have been if they had been dealt with under the previous system, especially if the college has been created at the expense of, for example, secure children’s homes. I should be very concerned if those ceased to be available because a college was being opened in a much more distant place.
I think that the Government have quite a bit more thinking to do about how they can realise their very desirable objective of providing basic education by means of some kind of secure college framework. It would be wrong to assume that it is possible simply to set up a large institution in one part of the country, and that people who are in custody for relatively short periods in a constant turnover will fit neatly into a programme of education. The objective is right, but the means have yet to be fully explained.
The “reasonable force” argument was mentioned earlier. I had a word with the Minister about that. I think that there may be some confusion about it. It needs to be made clear that there will be no breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights in secure colleges, and that reasonable force is used for the purpose for which it is provided—that is, for the safety of those in custody or of those around them, including those who are superintending the education for the purpose of which they have been placed in a secure college. There needs to be a safe environment.
By way of offering the Government a warning of the difficulties involved, I shall quote what the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, said in his oral evidence to the Select Committee. He pointed out that the youth custody population is not what it was two or three years ago, for the obvious reason that it is much smaller. That means that we now have the more intractable and difficult cases in youth custody, to which we are trying to apply this new system. He said that
“the nature of the juvenile population you now have in custody is different from what it was a year or two ago. The Government need to take that into account…What you now have is a higher concentration of the most troubled, most at-risk and most risky young people, concentrated in a very small number of establishments…You have to make sure that your future accommodation arrangements can guarantee the safety”
of those young people. He went on:
“It is not simply about the number of teachers you have; it is about whether you have the staff to get young people safely from their unit to the classroom, without trouble occurring en route, and to make sure that the teaching environment is safe and secure.”
Those are big challenges for the programme that the Government have set out.
My third topic is judicial review. The Public Bill Committee will need to look closely at the proposed change in the threshold for exclusion of judicial review from it being “inevitable” to being “highly likely” that the successful challenge would not change the outcome. There could be a risk of the argument becoming about the substance of the case, rather than about process. Judicial review is supposed to be about process. It is not an appeal mechanism in which the decision is considered by an alternative decision maker; it is a review of the process that has been carried out. However, if an argument had to take place about just how likely it was that the success of the review would make no difference, that would involve going quite deeply into the substance of the matter. The wording of that proposal will therefore have to be looked at carefully.
More generally, judicial review is inconvenient for the Executive. It is a nuisance, and the initials “JR” strike fear into the hearts of Ministers and, even more, of the civil servants who are always reminding Ministers about judicial review. However, it is a discipline by which we ensure that proper process is followed. It would be unsatisfactory to strip away that discipline completely and to say, “It doesn’t matter if you get the process wrong, as long as you make sure it’s not likely to affect the outcome.” The wording of this proposal also needs to be looked at, as do some of the cost attribution issues that have been raised today.
There is a problem when judicial review is used to try to delay a case sufficiently for the window of opportunity for something to happen to be closed, but such cases are few and far between. If we leave aside immigration cases, the increased use of judicial review is nothing like as big a problem as it was thought to be. The increase was identified as being primarily a result of immigration cases. I hope that the Bill Committee will look carefully at the wording of those measures. We must recognise that we need to maintain the discipline and that, if the law requires us to go through certain processes, we must go through them. If we do not, we run the risk of bringing trouble into court. I am referring not only to the Government in this context; this applies also to a wide range of local authorities and major infrastructure industries.
It would be wrong for me to conclude without referring to a point that has been underlying much of the debate—namely, that these are aspects of the criminal justice system whose primary purposes will be addressed only if we achieve further long-term reform. I see that reform as involving primarily what my Committee has called justice reinvestment—that is, taking resources away from the damaged end of the system and putting them into the beginning, so that victims do not become victims in the first place because crimes do not happen. We must ensure that we direct the resources to the appropriate areas, just as the Government have sought to do in the transforming families programme, so that they prevent crimes from happening in the first place. We need to create a virtuous circle in which we do not need so many prison places because fewer crimes are happening. We had an opportunity to do that, and crime levels have been falling, but that opportunity has unfortunately been compromised by the difficult financial situation in which the Government have found themselves. That means that it has been much harder to prime the pump, or to put in extra resources.
That brings us right back to the ultimate purpose of justice reinvestment, which is to move resources. In order to do that properly, we need to address a matter that the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) mentioned earlier—that is, something that the Select Committee calls local commissioning. In such a system, the decisions about the resources needed to deal with crime are made by all the agencies that have to handle crime at local level. Many of those decisions are now made locally, which is a good thing, but one crucial one is not: the decision on how much money is spent on prisons and where that money is put. That is still very much a national decision and it will remain so under the Government’s present policy.
I believe that we will achieve more in crime prevention when we have a rational allocation of resources at local level by all the organisations involved. They include the police, the courts, the magistracy and the judiciary, as well as the youth offending teams and all those in the voluntary sector who are becoming involved in these processes. Quite a lot of good practice has developed—in youth offending teams, for example—and the lessons from that need to be learned throughout the criminal justice system as a whole.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the Chairman of the Justice Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). As a former member of his Committee, I know that he always speaks with great knowledge and is very considered in his views. I agree with much of what he has said today.
The Bill is a wasted opportunity. It makes no mention of victims, of probation, of legal aid, of women in the justice system or of ethnic minorities. The Government have missed an opportunity, especially in relation to important issues like the huge changes to criminal legal aid that the Lord Chancellor is about to announce. We await that announcement with bated breath; he has been promising the legal profession that he would make it, but we are still waiting. The Bill could have considered those huge changes to legal aid. The entire legal profession is completely against the Lord Chancellor’s views and the Government’s proposals. On 7 March, criminal solicitors and barristers will be taking a day of industrial action. I think that the solicitors are describing it as a training day, in order to get round certain issues. The Government could have used the Bill to debate those important changes properly.
I do not disagree with everything in the Bill. In fact, I agree with a lot of it—including, for example, the restrictions on the use of cautions. I have expressed my concerns and complained about the use of cautions, along with other Members on both sides of the House.
Keith Vaz
I should like to praise my hon. Friend. He served briefly on the Home Affairs Committee after he served on the Justice Committee—has he served on every Committee in the House?—and he asked for an inquiry into this matter and we were going to have one. I congratulate him on his long campaign to make this a subject worthy of discussion.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making those remarks. He rightly said that I raised the issue when I was briefly a member of his Committee, and I wrote to him formally after I had left the Committee to ask for an inquiry, which he kindly agreed to have. This issue has been a problem for a relatively long time. Government Members said that it has become a particular problem since 2007, and that is probably right, but in my experience, from my constituency, it has increased dramatically since 2010. That is a point of debate and hon. Members may wish to disagree with me on it, but I am glad that the Government have finally accepted that this is a definite issue and that they are going to deal with cautions for indictable-only offences and for repeat offenders.
I have some concerns about single magistrates sitting for summary only, non-imprisonable offences. If someone pleads guilty by post for a road traffic offence, I have no problem with their being dealt with by a single magistrate. However, the Bill does not state that this approach will be confined just to road traffic offences, and I have concerns about that. Justice must be done and be seen to be done, and this approach also completely undermines the notion of collective decision making.
Let me now deal with the sentencing provisions. I was a criminal law practitioner before I was elected to this House, and I am on record as saying that I was never a fan of indeterminate sentences for public protection. However, the provisions in the Bill are undoubtedly a knee-jerk reaction by this Lord Chancellor to the fact that his extended sentences in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 simply have not worked—the Government are reacting to that.
I do not wish to speak for too long on my next issue, as other Members have made the point well, but part 4 of the Bill is of particular concern to me because it seems to undermine the possibility of challenging Executive decisions in a judicial review. The Lord Chancellor is on the record, commenting to his favourite newspaper, the Daily Mail, describing judicial review as
“a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners”.
With respect, that type of comment could be made only by this Lord Chancellor, who simply does not appreciate the importance of the rule of law.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Lord Chancellor is completely missing the point, as the majority of judicial review cases involve individuals—disabled people, people with learning difficulties, children and other vulnerable people—who are having to challenge inappropriate state decisions, in a situation where there is huge inequality of bargaining power? Portraying judicial review as being about campaign groups prosecuting an agenda is simply a misrepresentation of what it is predominantly about.
Karl Turner
My hon. Friend made the point better than I was about to and has hit the nail entirely on the head. This measure is populist stuff; it is the Lord Chancellor trying to be popular. Judicial review is not the only thing he attacks—he attacks human rights. As a lawyer, I find it frustrating to listen to him when he debates in this House because he seems not to understand the relationship between the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998: he confuses the two. He is attacking the system. He has attacked human rights, judicial review, legal aid and no win, no fee arrangements. He has attacked any opportunity for people to challenge the Government or organisations the Lord Chancellor seems not to be terribly impressed by.
My main concern is clause 50, which seeks to change the threshold for bringing judicial review. People who bring reviews often have legitimate claims; these reviews are not some spurious attempt to challenge the Government, and these people often have lawyers advising them. Solicitors and members of the Bar will discuss the possibility of success in these cases and will give advice. I respectfully submit that judges do not just let spurious cases go through, so I think the Lord Chancellor could do with a lesson in the entire system.
I know that other Members wish to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will leave it there.
Simon Reevell (Dewsbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I declare an interest, in that I still practise at the Bar, so to a certain extent I comment on this Bill as someone who may have to make its provisions actually work. In that context, I think the Bill contains some very positive measures, especially on sentencing and cautions.
I had not appreciated that the entire Labour party was against the policy of cautioning that it introduced or that one consequence of the general election of 2010 was that the use of cautioning suddenly escalated. I had understood that this policy was introduced and promoted by the previous Government, and that it has been absolutely corrosive to the criminal justice system. It has undermined the public’s confidence in the police, who are perceived to use cautioning as an easy solution; and it has caused problems in the criminal justice system, where co-accused are separated, with one being cautioned and the other being prosecuted. I am glad that this Government are doing what they can to start to turn around that ship, but let us not forget who launched it and pushed it on its course.
Karl Turner
The hon. Gentleman speaks on these issues with real knowledge as a member of the Bar—he is a member of my old circuit, so I know him well. Does he not accept that when budgets are constrained and the police have had something like a 30% cut to their budget, there is a temptation for them just to go for a caution without a referral to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice on charging? Is that not possible?
Simon Reevell
My recollection is that the hon. Gentleman was a member of my circuit, but I will have a think about that. Cautioning has been utterly corrosive, and even when people have been prosecuted the sentencing procedures that have been put in place have been difficult for lawyers, and impossible for non-lawyers, to understand. The point has been well made that the idea of someone serving no more than half a sentence is difficult for people to take on board, but when somebody reappears after a few days or a few weeks the public simply cannot comprehend it. A good start is linking the release of serious offenders to the scrutiny of the Parole Board. It is an important link and I am glad that it is being reintroduced. I say “reintroduced” because it worked very well in the 1990s, but since then we have had indeterminate sentences for public protection, and judging by some of the comments today it is clear that the party that introduced them still does not understand the problems they caused.
The Bill has the advantage of introducing a system that imposes a period of imprisonment that will be served unless, after a substantial time, the Parole Board approves early release. The Bill retains the incentive for the prisoner and provides a valuable safeguard for the rest of us—that is a good piece of legislation. What a pity that we had to have those years of messing around with alternatives before going back to something that worked well in the 1990s.
When someone is released, is it wrong to use technology to monitor them? I understand that some people will be uncomfortable with the idea of tracking humans with a global positioning system, but is it any different from putting a tag on someone and using different technology to monitor whether or not they enter or leave a building? Surely when people are precluded by court order from going to certain locations, there is nothing wrong in monitoring that with technology. There is always a line with technology that we should not cross, but this Bill falls far short of it.
If someone on licence breaches the terms of that licence and will do so again, why should they not have to serve the remainder of their sentence? Most people probably assume that that is what happens anyway, and would be surprised to learn that the system provided for anything else. People have the licence terms explained to them: if they breach the licence and it looks as though they will do it again, they should serve their sentence, and there cannot be anything wrong with that.
One aspect of the Bill that has received media attention relates to proceedings for judicial review. Is it really controversial that those who wish to be involved in someone else’s case may have to pay towards the cost of those proceedings? Those who appear as interveners are free to provide their assistance, knowledge and experience to any party in any case, but if they want to appear themselves, why should it be assumed that one of the parties will automatically pick up their costs or that they will have no responsibility for the costs that they incur on behalf of others? They are free to pass on their expertise and knowledge, but if they want to take part in the litigation, some responsibility may come with that.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman’s point sounds reasonable, but the reality is that one of the parties is the state, with all the resources and the power that the state can bring to bear, and the other parties are simply not in the same position. They are trying to challenge an exercise of state power in a situation where there is a gross inequality of bargaining power. At times, that means that positions and points that are important for public policy will not otherwise be considered. That would be a price worth paying if it actually meant that public policy was improved.
Simon Reevell
I do not disagree, and that is why the Bill provides for circumstances in which that can happen. However, in a large number of cases, expertise can be provided without intervention and representation being needed. As an aside, organisations that oppose this measure and that frequently appear as interveners should make it clear in their lobbying that they stand to be affected by the changes that they oppose.
The leapfrogging provisions of judicial review are not controversial and are a good idea. Only last week, the Supreme Court exerted its authority. As confidence grows that it will be, as it should be, the final court in this jurisdiction and that that is where issues will ultimately be determined, why incur cost and delay calling in at the Court of Appeal if a matter will automatically be referred to the Supreme Court?
Is it really controversial to suggest that a case that offers the prospect of nothing more than a pyrrhic victory should not take up days of court time? I find the opposition to clause 50 surprising. It seems to come from the left, yet the argument that has been advanced recently in the High Court, especially in relation to ballots by trade unions on industrial activity, is that if we have thousands of members and we only have the addresses wrong for half a dozen or so, why should we rerun the ballot when it will not affect the outcome? Is that not precisely the sort of point that should be dealt with at a preliminary hearing? If it is quite clear that there was no mischief in the error and that changing the error would not affect the outcome, is there any need for full judicial review proceedings? Something that is argued on behalf of the trade unions as perfectly sensible in the High Court seems, when it appears in a Government Bill, to be worthy only of criticism from the Opposition Benches.
For all the focus on judicial review, I agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and others that the clause on which people should reflect concerns the magistrates court, which deals with 95% of all criminal cases. Clause 50 creates a system for trial, not for guilty plea, so the idea of guilty plea by post is not what the clause is about. It creates a system for trial, the determination of proceedings that are not admitted. These proceedings could involve criminal damage, assault and public order. They are not matters that will attract sentences of custody, but they could have implications that affect people’s livelihoods. They could be determined behind closed doors, and in a process that involves nobody who has any legal qualification whatever. It could be a single lay magistrate in a private room with papers provided by a police officer. I hope the Government will reflect on that.
One solution is to have at least two if not three magistrates. Another is to say that if it is a single justice, they should be a district judge. The idea that a file can be submitted, that there is no intervention from a prosecutor and that a lay justice in private can decide whether someone has committed a criminal offence is quite a significant step. It may well be that some of these people have not bothered to reply or that some know they are guilty, but there is some significance to that step and it is something on which we should reflect.
The Bill also makes provision in relation to wasted cost. I will tease the Minister a little by reminding him that there is one party to criminal proceedings that often causes trials to be adjourned owing to lack of court time or lack of jurors, and there are no cost implications for them, and that is of course the Court Service.
It is impossible to speak in a debate on criminal justice and courts without making mention of the current problems over proposals regarding remuneration. My recollection is that it was the previous Labour Government who first saw industrial action by the Bar. It was in relation to remuneration for very high cost cases and proceeds of crime cases some six or seven years ago. My view now is the same as it was then. I know as well as anyone the talents and strengths of those who practise at the independent Bar, but there must be a balance between those who practise in the courts and those whom the courts are there to serve. Pursuit of remuneration should never tip the balance away from timely remedy for those seeking justice, whether it is because they are complainants or victims or because they are awaiting trial.
Finally, those who would never reverse these proposals if ever the opportunity arose should be slow in hinting that they might.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell), who brings a great deal of expertise in this area. He and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) made a number of pertinent points about the administrative proposals for judicial process that are introduced by this Bill. They raised their concerns over the idea of single justices dealing with some of these administrative processes. As someone who was once a magistrates legal adviser and read out some of the mitigation statements and dealt with some of the TV licence courts for hours on end, I can say that having a single justice can be very effective. A single justice is capable right now of making a bail decision on someone charged with a very serious offence such as murder. A single justice of the peace can decide on that. They can adjourn matters and send them to the Crown court. I am not aware of that causing any particular difficulties. The proposal that we have a single justice looking at these measures is far less of a power than some of the powers that they currently have. I hope that some of the fears that have been raised today can be allayed with that information.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Bill covers a wide range of areas—I will concentrate on just a few of them—because it has always been necessary for the criminal law to keep up with society and evolve to meet the modern challenges and changes in behaviour that we all see. The Bill will help to ensure that that continues. For example, it will use developments in modern technology to track offenders more accurately and therefore far more reliably.
It must be a welcome development to ensure that offenders contribute more to the cost of their cases when they are convicted of a criminal offence. That just makes plain sense. We have always had a system of cost payments on conviction, with the legal test that those cost awards should be just and reasonable. These measures, however, take that situation further by matching the total cost incurred by the taxpayer. A crucial aspect of the Bill is the awarding of costs to be picked up by the wrongdoer. In other words, the Bill will ensure that the polluter pays and that the polluter pays for all his pollution. I have long felt that we have had something of an anomaly in the system, where the costs created by an offender and incurred by the victim can be reimbursed, quite rightly, and the costs incurred by the prosecution can also be reimbursed, quite rightly, but the costs incurred by the court cannot. That places expense on the taxpayer that has been incurred owing to the offender’s actions or inactions, yet nothing has ever been done to tackle this anomaly. Therefore, I am pleased that this situation will be rectified.
I am also pleased that the Bill seeks to formalise the cautions system. Cautions can be effective when used in appropriate cases, but they must command public support. That support can be lacking if people feel that offenders are receiving cautions for offences that are too serious or for repeat offending. Clearly, if a first caution has not prevented reoffending, there is little hope that a second caution will achieve that objective. There will always be exceptional circumstances where they should apply, but the Bill correctly recognises that situation. Generally, we should not allow cautions to be given where the public would see that as a betrayal of justice and basic fair play.
Successive Governments have sought to try to tackle reoffending rates. This Government have sought to do so by assisting short-term prisoners. Previous Governments have tried to work out other ways to reduce reoffending rates. To the credit of cautions, when they are given at their best, they have the most successful rates of tacking reoffending. Reoffending rates are lowest when cautions are given in appropriate cases. The criminal justice system should ensure that they are given only for minor, isolated offending.
The same concerns that people have about cautions are also held about penalty notices for disorder—or the so-called fixed penalty notices—that are issued at the police station. If they are given in inappropriate cases, people also rightly feel let down. It is therefore essential that the issuing of PNDs is not used to get around the intentions of the Bill. If it is inappropriate to give a caution—for example, owing to the serious nature of the offence that the police are dealing with—it should also be inappropriate to give a fixed penalty notice, and that person should be put before a court instead of being given a PND.
I have alluded to 2007 because that was the year when we saw the highest number of not just PNDs but cautions given at a police station. I saw back in that year that, in my constituency, repeat shoplifters were given PNDs again and again, when that was clearly as inappropriate as giving cautions again and again. If an out-of-court disposal has shown itself to be ineffective, we need to have court actions.
The Bill effectively places into legislation the guidance that is already given to the police on the issuing of cautions. It does not, however, include the necessity to consult the victim wherever, as the current guideline stipulates, it is appropriate and possible. I hope therefore that the Minister will agree that the victim’s views will continue to be an important factor when the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions decides to offer a caution, so that the victim’s views are canvassed before that caution is administered at the police station.
I also welcome the moves to place education at the heart of the youth offending process. Youth offender institutions have the ability to show children and young adults in their establishments what can be achieved through education. Giving young people the confidence that can come with education is vital if we are to maximise the potential to reduce reoffending. It gives young offenders the confidence that they very often lack. These measures have been criticised, but secure colleges simply make common sense. It must be right to educate young people when they are in prison, to help to tackle the very high reoffending rates that we are seeing among those inmates when they leave young offenders institutions. The programme of secure colleges will take time to roll out, but they can complement, not simply replace, the efforts that are in place to challenge offending behaviour.
In conclusion, I would simply say that there are clearly measures in the Bill that we can all welcome. Despite what we have heard, it is some time since we have seen a criminal justice Bill taken through the House. The Bill will help to bring up to date some of the laws that were falling behind and close the gaps that offenders have taken advantage of, so I hope that it will be unopposed today and that it will go through to the next stage of proceedings.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I doubt whether the Bill will be opposed today, but I hope that there will be time to consider amendments that might improve it at a later stage. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for coming so late to the debate. I heard the opening speeches and then had to chair a meeting elsewhere, but I will be brief.
I want to make three simple points. With regard to secure colleges, sometimes if we stand still long enough, things come round again. They will smack very much of the old approved schools if we are not careful. The proposed £85 million project seems to involve a 320-bed institution. All the evidence in recent years has demonstrated that tackling young offenders and rehabilitating youngsters to ensure that they do not offend in the future is better done in smaller units, rather than large ones. That is why we moved away from the old approved schools, so that more intensive work could be done with young offenders and young potential offenders in smaller units. The proposal flies in the face of all that evidence and seems to take us back, rather than forward. However, if the Government are to experiment in this way, it is important that at least some provision remains in smaller units, particularly for those young people who are vulnerable. We have had briefings from the Children’s Rights Alliance and others, and they have interpreted the Government’s commitment to maintain small secure children’s homes as somewhat ambiguous. It would be useful to hear from the Minister tonight about what the future is for small secure children’s homes under the proposed new structure. The vulnerable youngsters who are cared for in those units would be lost within the bigger establishments proposed by the Government today. There would be anxiety if we were to lose that element of specialism in the system in the future.
The second issue relates to the proposal for magistrates to sit alone when taking decisions. I read the Magistrates Association briefing, and I share some of its concerns that there is a need to ensure that justice is seen to be done. Removing cases from the courts into a side room in a police station or elsewhere with a magistrate sitting solely with a clerk may not be as open and transparent as in the past. I would welcome hearing the Government’s view on the magistrates’ recommendation about at least ensuring that lists of cases are published. Perhaps that should be incorporated into the Bill, so that we can give the assurance that openness and transparency will continue for two reasons: first, it is important that people know that justice is being done and that it is visible; and secondly, some people want to know that the perpetrators have been prosecuted appropriately and have received the appropriate sentences. Therefore, listing cases would at least maintain an element of openness and transparency in the system. I hope that the Government can take on board the Magistrates Association recommendation and build it into the Bill.
The third issue, which I am anxious about, is judicial review. In my own experience, judicial review has largely been used by an individual or small organisation to challenge decisions by state bodies; in my own area, those have largely been decisions made by local councils. At the moment, judicial review is incredibly hard to undertake, largely because of the costs involved. It takes about £10,000 to £15,000 just to get into court in any form to have a judicial review heard, which is beyond the means of most individual and many organisations, but at least there is the opportunity to challenge a decision.
In my area, a judicial review took place recently when the local authority closed down special needs centres, or undertook the exercise of closing them down. That decision was challenged by the parents of the centres’ clients. They won at judicial review, forcing the local authority to reconsider its decision and to consult properly. That is the appropriate mechanism for judicial review. The Government’s current proposals will bear heavily on those individuals or organisations that are challenging decisions by bodies such as local councils.
I refer back to the debates that we had during the passage of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, when evidence was brought forward by Transparency International about the problems with local government decision making: its closed nature and the use of commercial interests to drive decisions into part 2 of the cabinet decision-making processes. In other words, it revealed the secretive nature of decision making by some local authorities. Again, judicial review becomes the last resort for many organisations and individuals—certainly in my community—to try to get some form of appropriate and reasonable decision making, or at least some form of supervision of that decision making by the courts themselves.
I fear that these proposals will restrict the opportunity of the most vulnerable in our society to hold the powerful to account. I welcome the Government’s reassurances that there will perhaps be an opportunity to consider some amendments to the current proposals, which would allow the current process to be maintained and improved.
The Government have included a commitment to cost orders within the process itself. I agree that we should try to ensure a limit on costs overall. The problem is that the cost orders come too late in the process, The decision-making process will be more at the permissive stage, so a lot more work will be required of representatives before a cost order can even be applied for, which would provide protection from the heavy burden of costs during the process.
I would like the Government to look again at where the cost orders can be implemented. Under the Government’s proposals, just to get to the permissive stage an individual will either have to fund a considerable amount of work or it will have to be done at risk by an individual lawyer, before there is even a discussion about the cost order and cost-sharing.
This is largely about individuals fighting institutions that are well-resourced. Again, I will give an example from my own area. Many times, individual councillors have been protected by the council’s insurance against any legal action that is taken about their own decision making. So the individual is at risk, but the individual councillor or the council body is protected, bizarrely using—most probably—part of that individual’s council tax payment to enable that protection to be given. The problem in these proposals is that the cost burden, or the cost deterrent, will fall more greatly on the individuals concerned. I would welcome the Government considering, perhaps during the progress of this Bill, a more effective way of ensuring that the cost burden is limited—overall, of course, but also as it falls on the individual concerned.
The issue of interveners was referred to earlier. Every time I have been involved in a judicial review process in my area, interveners have played an invaluable role in bringing their expertise to the table and to the discussions within court itself. I would be wary of restricting the ability of specialist organisations to intervene in a particular case. I could give example after example of what is happening with my own local authority not only of individual housing cases but of individual health cases, where interveners have helped by bringing their health expertise to a case, because it then merits a wider debate about a particular aspect of that case that has a wider public interest.
I am glad that the environmental issues have been separated from this process—largely as a result of European conventions, I see—because in my own area judicial review has been one of the mechanisms by which we have at least been able to seek to protect ourselves against adverse planning decisions that have had an environmental impact on my community. That may well be an issue that we will want to come back to when we debate the proposals for a third runway at Heathrow, because we will be looking for a judicial review of the Government’s decisions at every possible opportunity if they wish to proceed with those proposals. Therefore, it is good that environmental matters are excluded from the heavy burden of costs, as far as I can see.
John McDonnell
I see that my hon. Friend on the Front Bench is shaking his head. I am happy for him to correct me on that matter.
Mr Slaughter
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent speech. However, I think that some matters under the Aarhus convention are protected but other environmental matters may well not be.
John McDonnell
I see. Again, we may well table amendments to broaden that protection, because we will rely on judicial review powers to challenge Government decisions—we will certainly do so in the case of the third runway at Heathrow and we might do so in the case of High Speed 2 as well—if we feel that the Government have not acted appropriately or reasonably in their decision-making process.
Having made those three points, I will finish. They are about critical issues that the Government need to address. There is no opposition to the overall legislation tonight, but I hope that there will be opportunities in this process for the Government to consider amendments to improve the legislation, so that certain rights can be protected, particularly those of the individual taking on the powerful within our society.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I am in a slightly unusual position this evening, in that I rise to support the Government on this Bill. It is a particular pleasure to be able to support them on matters relating to criminal justice and courts, because that was not always the case when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice’s predecessor, the Minister without Portfolio, was in place.
I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on reversing the trend that we saw under his predecessor, which seemed to go against every Conservative principle on law and order. He was trying to send as few criminals to prison as possible, culminating —as the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) made clear in his remarks, with which I agreed—in his treatment of indeterminate sentences for public protection. That was the particular low point of this Government in criminal justice matters. I suspect that, as the right hon. Gentleman hinted at in his speech, if the current Secretary of State had been in place all the way through this Government, indeterminate sentences would still be in place. I do not think that he would ever have got rid of them, and some of the measures in this Bill are trying to undo the damage that was done by getting rid of those sentences in the first place. I am delighted that he has had the courage to revisit some of the issues that his predecessor failed on.
I say that I support the Government, and I do; I support this Bill wholeheartedly. However, as we have heard from other speakers, when we have legislation as extensive as this Bill—it is quite a wide-ranging piece of legislation—there will always be areas where one thinks the Government could have gone further, areas where there are missed opportunities and areas where one might have a few reservations. I am no different from other hon. Members in all those respects. I hope not to take too long, but I will go through a few of the areas where I particularly support the Government, where there have been missed opportunities, and where I have reservations, many of which I hope can be dealt with in Committee or on Report, so that in the end we have a much better Bill.
On clauses 1 to 3, anything that toughens up sentencing for criminals, particularly dangerous criminals, will always have my full support, so I am very pleased that the maximum sentence for certain dangerous offences is being increased to life imprisonment. Terrorists are a great threat to our national security, and measures to prevent them from carrying out their terrible crimes certainly have my full support.
With regard to clauses 24 to 28, I see no real problems with single magistrates dealing with very simple matters that do not require a bench of three to deliberate over. Should anyone object to the measure, I note the safeguards that are in place. I am pleased that single magistrates will deal only with straightforward and minor offences, such as television licence evasion. That should not be a criminal offence anyway, because a licence should not be forced on people; paying for a subscription should be a matter of personal choice, but that is a debate for a different day. Single magistrates will also deal with things like road tax evasion cases.
Dr Huppert
The hon. Gentleman talks about road tax evasion; he is presumably aware that road tax was scrapped in the 1930s.
Philip Davies
I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is on about, but people do evade their road tax.
Philip Davies
Their vehicle excise duty. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has reinforced his reputation for concentrating on the things that are not important, and not concentrating on the things that are.
Philip Davies
I certainly will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. We have wasted enough time on his nonsense; we will not waste any more on it. I have learned a lesson tonight: not to give way to him. Many people learned that lesson a long time ago, but in my naivety I had yet to learn it. I have learned it now.
I was making a point about single magistrates. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) expressed a reservation about the provision being extended to cover more than just the most basic and simple crimes. I share that concern. A system of single magistrates will never be appropriate for cases such as shoplifting, because magistrates have very different ideas about what should happen to offenders, particularly persistent offenders, in those types of cases. I hope that the power will not be extended. I sometimes worry that when a power is granted, it will be the thin end of the wedge and the power will be rapidly extended to other areas. I hope that will not be the case for this power. It will be introduced for very basic offences, and I hope it will stop there, and not be extended.
On clauses 37 to 39 and 40 to 48, I understand the concerns that have perhaps influenced the introduction of the new offences relating to jurors, especially given changes in technology. We already have the Contempt of Court Act 1981, so I am not entirely sure how necessary some of the measures are, but they may well be necessary.
I note the reasons given for increasing the maximum age of jurors from 70 to 75. I could not agree more with the rationale for that change, but I am tempted to table an amendment—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) mentioned this—to extend the change to magistrates and judges. I cannot see any difference between a juror of that age being able to determine the guilt or innocence of somebody in a serious criminal trial, and a member of a bench of magistrates or a judge of that age passing sentence. I do not really see why a person is capable of doing one of those things between the ages of 70 and 75, but not the others.
As the Ministry of Justice helpfully explained,
“According to the latest figures published by the Office for National Statistics, the healthy life expectancy of both men and women at age 65 is at least 10 years in England and Wales.
The existing age limit for jury service, which was set in 1988, does not reflect the current health of older people. Official figures show that healthy life expectancy of 65 year olds in England and Wales has risen since 2000.
We believe the selection of jurors should reflect that fact.”
If that is the case for jurors, presumably the case is exactly the same for magistrates and judges. There would be a cost saving if we extended the measure to magistrates, as they can claim for loss of earnings when they sit, and clearly magistrates who are aged 70 to 75 are less likely to be earning, or concerned with covering their loss of earnings, than those who are younger. Magistrates would still be subject to appraisals, so their competence would not be an issue. I have raised the issue of increasing the age limit before in this place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) once pointed out, it was ironic that the then Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), was past the retirement age for the magistrates of whom he was in charge. The amendment that I would like to see would rectify that anomaly.
I very much welcome the changes relating to judicial review. I hope that they mean that we will have less interference with decisions by judges who hear such cases. Parliament should set the law. Very often, as people will know, I do not particularly agree with Parliament’s decisions, but that is the price of democracy: sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. Parliament should set the laws of the land, and judges should implement the law as it stands. I do not like—we have seen this far too often in recent years—judges thinking that they should determine the law. If judges want to decide what the law is, they should give up being judges and put themselves up for election like everybody else. If they are not prepared to do that, they should accept the will of Parliament, whether they—or I—like it or not.
On clauses 29 to 31, I certainly understand the principle in the Bill that criminals should contribute to the costs of running courts. I note that the proposed criminal courts charge means that in future, somebody could be ordered in court to pay the following financial penalties: a fine; a victim surcharge; compensation; prosecution costs; and now this extra courts charge. The victim surcharge, which is basically a tax on offenders, has been a rather unhelpful development, particularly when it applies to people who are being sent to prison for long periods of time. When it was first introduced, for most offences, it was levied in cases where there was no victim. It seems bizarre that the victim surcharge was paid by offenders solely in cases where there was no victim. If the courts charge replaced the victim surcharge, that might make more sense. I certainly agree with the principle of making offenders pay; I just have reservations about how these things tend to work in practice.
Kate Green
I am slightly puzzled by what the hon. Gentleman says. My understanding was that the victim surcharge was applied on a case-by-case basis—
Kate Green
I advise the hon. Gentleman that when I was a magistrate sitting on the bench, we applied the surcharge, as part of our sentencing decision, with regard to individual cases. Does he agree that there should be a pecking order when it comes to how payments are applied? We should put the victim surcharge and compensation payments to particular victims ahead of recompense for the cost of the court.
Philip Davies
I am all for making sure that the victim is at the head of the queue when it comes to payments, but the victim surcharge was specifically targeted by the previous Government at offences in which there were no victims. That is the fact of the matter, whether the hon. Lady recalls it that way or not.
I welcome the sentiment behind the changes to release on licence. I am pleased to see any proposals that mean that more of the sentence given by the court is served by offenders. In fact, I have long argued that the sentence given by the court should be served in full by offenders, and that people should not be released early for good behaviour—they should be kept in longer for bad behaviour. At the very least, offenders should not be released automatically halfway through their sentence. That was an absolute scandal that was introduced by the previous Government. I would like to see the Bill go further to rectify that, but I appreciate the point made by the Secretary of State that even though he cannot rectify it in full, he wants to make a start in doing so, and I support him in that.
According to research carried out by Lord Ashcroft, more than 80% of the public think that sentences should be served in full. I cannot improve on the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), who spoke earlier today. On Second Reading of the Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, he said, as shadow Secretary of State:
“We have said that there should be a policy of honesty in sentencing. The fight against crime depends on integrity in the criminal justice system and on courts that deliver swift, effective justice, with punishments appropriate to the crime and the criminal. In the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Government introduced automatic release on licence halfway through the sentence for all determinate sentences of longer than 12 months…If this were our Bill, we would introduce provisions to restore honesty in sentencing, in order to reassure victims and leave criminals in no doubt that justice is done.”—[Official Report, 8 October 2007; Vol. 464, c. 79.]
I think that many people went out and voted Conservative at the last general election on the basis that we would restore that honesty to sentencing. The provision is a small step in that direction, but a welcome one. I should like the Government to make clear their intention to remove early release altogether. I appreciate that coalition restraints often do not make such things possible, but I am bound to say that this does not go far enough.
I am pleased that, under clause 6 offenders could be ordered to be subject to compulsory electronic monitoring. I am a big fan of electronic monitoring, particularly monitoring that uses tracking technology, which I hope will have an effect both as a deterrent against future crime and as a means of convicting and punishing those who reoffend while on licence. Similarly, I welcome the changes to the recall of prisoners released on licence, but with some reservations, as the changes do not go nearly far enough. The fixed-term recall, in which the offender is returned to prison for breaching their licence for just 28 days—not, as most people would expect, the rest of the period of their original sentence—is a very bad law. It means not only that offenders are released early but that they are released extremely early again if they fail to abide by their licence conditions both the first time round and if they reoffend. That is outrageous, and the Government need to clamp down on it.
For life sentences, the proposed changes could be going in the right direction, but I still believe that life should mean life. I have highlighted that many times: in my view and that of most of the constituents I speak to there should be no release of a prisoner sent to prison for life. We would not have to deal with the issue of release after the recall of a life prisoner if we did not release life prisoners in first place. The issue of prisoners absconding or not returning to custody is something I have been concerned about for a while. As I mentioned earlier, anything that increases sentencing or toughens up the current position is something I shall happily support. The new offence created by the Bill and the increased penalties for the existing offence are changes that certainly have my support. I only wish we were not releasing people who went on to reoffend or breach their conditions.
Figures I obtained from parliamentary questions show the alarmingly high number of absconds and people not returned to custody after recall. The most persistent are murderers and attempted murderers. Not only my constituents but people up and down the country are asking why on earth we release so many of these murderers on licence.
Cautions were mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), and I agree with him. For some time, I have highlighted, along with him, the use of cautions for very serious offences. I am pleased that the Bill seeks to address the issue. It is worth repeating that a caution is given only when an individual accepts responsibility for the crime—they admit that they are guilty—so their use for serious indictable offences has naturally concerned me and many others. I welcome the curbing of the use of repeat cautions, which has always seemed bizarre to me. A person is given a warning for doing something, they do it again, and instead of being sent to court to face the music, some people are given yet another warning, and yet another warning, and even another warning after that. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, recent Ministry of Justice figures apparently showed that 62,000 offenders given a caution in the 12 months to March 2013 had already received a caution previously. The figures also showed that 8,800 criminals who were handed a caution last year had accepted at least one caution for the same offence previously. Perhaps more staggering is the fact that an offender in Northumbria had been given cautions on 50 occasions, and over 50% of persistent offenders do not receive immediate custody. This is an absolute scandal and makes a mockery of the criminal justice system, so I welcome these changes.
I will not detain the House on the issue of young offenders, but I would like some clarification that the proposals will apply equally to boys as well as girls. I would not want to support any proposal that treats them differently, particularly when they have committed the same offence.
I will certainly be tabling an amendment to extend the time limit for an appeal by the Attorney-General against an unduly lenient sentence. I am concerned that the strict 28-day deadline has been, and could be in future, missed in some serious cases. Victims and the public in general need to have confidence in the judicial system, and in the case of an unduly lenient sentence, if the deadline is missed simply because the victim was not made aware of it in time and so did not ask for it to be referred, that confidence could be undermined. I understand the desire to have these things treated quickly, so I would not be looking for an extremely lengthy extension of time. I pay tribute to Jean Taylor and the campaign group Families Fighting for Justice, who have done a lot of work campaigning on this issue. I hope that the Government will be responsive to an extension, perhaps to 90 days, for the most serious offence where people are in custody for a long time, but perhaps not long enough given the seriousness of the offence. I hope that the Government will look favourably upon such an amendment.
I would also like the Bill to end the ludicrous position where time spent on a tagged curfew is credited as if it was time spent on remand in prison. In 2008, on the subject of allowing a curfew whilst on bail to count as credit towards a prison sentence, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), speaking as the shadow Minister said:
“If someone has committed an offence that crosses the custody threshold—an offence that is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence—it will cause a great deal of scepticism, undermine public confidence in the justice system and make the Government look increasingly ridiculous if the court is then required to say, ‘By the way, all the time that you have spent at home in bed is time that can be taken away from your custodial sentence.’”—[Official Report, 9 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 369.]
I agreed with his comments then and I still agree with them now. He was absolutely right to say that when the last Government introduced this ridiculous rule. I hope that the Government, even if they will not do it in this Bill, will seek the earliest opportunity to scrap that ridiculous state of affairs.
I would also like to have seen magistrates allowed to sentence people to prison for up to 12 months for one offence, instead of the current six-month limit. The Conservative party was committed to that at the last election and it is something that I certainly still support. Magistrates have the power to sentence offenders to prison for 12 months for two or more either-way offences and nobody seems concerned about that. There is a possibility that this measure may also cut the cost of our judicial system by allowing more cases to be dealt with in the cheaper magistrates courts compared with the more expensive Crown courts.
I would also like to see consideration given in the Bill to making judges accountable for their decisions, particularly where they do not hand down custodial sentences that would be perfectly justifiable and possibly even expected, and where the offender then goes on to re-offend. I do not think I need to say now what the consequences of the collection of this information should be, but it should be quite clear to many that there should be consequences for a judge who consistently allows offenders to avoid prison, if those offenders go on to make others suffer as a result of their continuing crime sprees. At the very least there should be some assessment of their ability to perform their role.
I talked about boy and girl offenders earlier and I would also like to place on record my continued interest in seeing male and female offenders treated in the same way, particularly when they are convicted of the same offences. That should apply not just for sentencing purposes but for all aspects of the criminal justice system. I am pleased that it is becoming increasingly accepted that women are treated far more leniently than men in the criminal justice system, and that needs to be addressed.
I would like the Bill to have included the principle of a sentencing escalator. The principle was proposed in a private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). It is extremely popular with the public. Thanks to polling carried out by Lord Ashcroft, we know that it has the support of at least 67% of the British public. The British public clearly think, as I do, that if someone commits an offence and then does it again, the punishment on the second occasion should be more severe than the punishment on the first, and that the punishment on a third occasion should be more severe than the punishment on the second. I would like the Government to make progress on that.
Despite those omissions, on which I would like to see the Government make progress, either in this Bill or in future, the Bill can still be seen as a substantial step forward for the criminal justice system in this country, and the Government and the Secretary of State should be commended for that. Even when the Bill reaches the statute book—hopefully with some of the amendments I propose—I will still be here on the Back Benches urging the Government to go much further.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate on our criminal justice system. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who made an excellent speech.
Although the figures on overall recorded crime over the past few years have been encouraging, it is clear to me and to many of my constituents that the deterrent for a number of crimes still needs to be increased so that the courts can be tougher in a variety of cases. As a result of high-profile cases in the media, as well as the terrorist threat facing London and other parts of the UK, there seems to be a perception that crime is increasing, despite what the statistics show. Members of the public need to be reassured that the courts system is keeping pace with the challenges it faces, and I believe that the many sensible measures in the Bill go some way towards achieving that.
My constituency was in the news not so long ago because of a fugitive. Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed sliced off his security tag and vanished from Acton’s An-Noor centre dressed in a burqa, spreading considerable concern throughout the community. We welcome the measures in the Bill designed to clamp down on being unlawfully at large.
I also very much welcome the introduction of life sentences for terror-related offences, including training and manufacturing weapons for terrorist activity. Although very serious in themselves, those offences are also a factor in the wider problem of radicalisation of young British citizens, which threatens the peaceful future of some of our communities. That dangerous manipulation of vulnerable young minds must be addressed with the toughest of sanctions. The case of Abu Hamza, a long-standing resident in my constituency, aroused considerable concern that the law as it stood was ineffective in dealing with someone who was proud to boast about his support for terrorist activity or with his dangerous proselytising outside the Finsbury Park mosque.
It is vital that those fears are addressed. I believe that the widening of the enhanced dangerous offenders sentencing scheme will help achieve that. The sanction of a life sentence must be available to the courts when dealing with those convicted of terrorist offences. I understand that mandatory life sentences for those convicted of a second terrorist offence and the end of automatic parole for terrorism offences would affect as many as 30 people a year.
The issues of sentencing for certain serious crimes and the use of cautions are well covered in the proposed legislation. For too long criminals have operated in the knowledge that custodial sentences are often half what the term suggests, in many cases automatically so. I am pleased that under the proposed changes those guilty of terror offences and certain sexual offences will no longer be automatically up for parole. It is quite right that no one serving an extended determinate sentence should be released without going before a parole board.
The use of police cautions for repeat offenders has resulted in serial offenders regularly escaping jail sentences and has left many of my constituents asking whether the law of the land has any serious role to play in certain crimes. Figures published by the Centre for Crime Prevention last year show that over a five-year period the number of offenders with at least 10 or more previous cautions and subsequent convictions rose by a quarter to 140,000, which suggests that cautions offer very little deterrent, especially to the hardened repeat offender. I am also caused to wonder how much police time and resource is wasted in having to issue cautions time after time to the same people. Given that cautions are intended to represent a warning for relatively minor offences, it is appropriate that they will no longer be used in cases such as rape, possession of an offensive weapon, or sexual offences against children. In fact, it seems extraordinary that such crimes could ever be treated so leniently.
While welcoming the tougher sentences, I also support the idea that some straightforward criminal justice processes need to be streamlined. It is hard to see why a bench of three magistrates is needed to make decisions on charges such as evasion of a television licence or road tax. While not trivialising such offences, the focus of magistrates’ expertise must surely be on more contentious issues. The imposition of financial charges on those convicted in the criminal courts will not only relieve the burden on the taxpayer but provide an additional deterrent. I welcome the sense of fairness that such a charge would engender, which is important for the justice system. The Government must continue to be on the side of those who stick to the rules.
I support the proposed legislation to deal with juror conduct in the internet age. While there may be an absence of malicious intent, jurors need to be very clear that researching cases in which they are involved or disclosing jury deliberations by electronic means are grave offences that could prejudice fair justice. Guidelines on this have suffered accusations of inconsistency, and the courts need a clear message. The provisions outlined in the Bill do a great deal better to equip the courts to deal with the modern challenges they face.
It has surely always been true that there is an implicit deal between those who administer and deliver justice and everyone else—that is, “Leave it to them and they will not disappoint.” However, that deal requires trust, and any breakdown in that trust has serious consequences, as a great previous Conservative Home Secretary, now Lord Howard, well understood. At this point, I should add that I am truly delighted that our Court of Appeal has rejected attempts by the European Court of Human Rights to prohibit our judges from imposing whole life sentences on the most heinous murderers. This is a common-sense victory for our justice system and its ability to decide what is in the best interests of this country.
When crimes are brought to court, society needs to feel that justice has been fully done and seen to be done. If the system begins to fail on this count, that is when people begin to lose faith in the law. The Bill will do much to restore confidence in this regard. I would be delighted, if selected, to serve on the Bill Committee to help ensure that it emerges perhaps improved even further as it progresses to its next stage.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), an old colleague on the London Assembly where we attempted, among other things, to scrutinise the Metropolitan Police Authority in its early days. I strongly agree with the sentiments she expressed.
I am delighted to see the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), back in his place. With respect, his was very much a speech of two parts. When I listened to the first part, I thought, “Well, he clearly wants to stand for Mayor of London because he is doing a south London knockabout comic turn.” I was glad that he turned serious in the second part, although I do not agree with all of his analysis. I gently say this to him: keep the day job going because potential Mayors of London are now expected to be various turns, comic or otherwise, from north of the river rather than south. Leaving aside our political disagreement, I say with respect that the one thing that did trouble me—I hope it was perhaps a slip of the tongue—was his saying, as it certainly appeared to a number of Government Members, that judicial review should be capable of challenging primary legislation. I cannot believe that is what he meant to convey.
Robert Neill
Given how the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, I will take his word on that. I think we all accept that judicial review was not and never should be intended to challenge the will of Parliament. It does, though, have a legitimate role in relation to secondary legislation and the Executive, and I will return to that later. I am grateful that he has clarified his view on that point, which troubled me because it was surprising, if I may put it that way.
I warmly welcome the thrust of the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing it. I will not touch on all parts of the Bill, but I want to discuss some areas that remind me of my past life—although that may be a dangerous thing to talk about at too much length in this House—and professional experience, namely the 25 years or more that I spent at the criminal Bar. I am delighted with some of the changes to make sentencing more realistic. I do not take the view that sentencing must always be draconian and that all those convicted in the courts are beyond a degree of redemption. That is clearly not the case. It is important, however, that sentencing has the confidence of the public, the victims and the majority law-abiding community. It is also worth remembering that sometimes the families of offenders are themselves victims to a degree. It is very important to have confidence in sentencing, so the greater transparency proposed by the Bill with regard to the amount of time served and the consequences of bad behaviour is a valuable step forward.
The same applies to the use of cautions. I have sympathy with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who is another former practising barrister and to whom I apologise because I was not present to hear his speech. It degrades the value of cautions to use them for serious offences for which any ordinary, right-thinking member of the public—in other words, to use the famous lawyer’s test, any man or woman on the Clapham omnibus—will conclude that they were never intended to be used. Cautions were intended to be used for trivial matters, so using them for more serious offences degrades their value in those areas where they have a legitimate role. I hope there will be no suggestion that there has been any pressure in terms of targets or resources. The Government have taken a step in the right direction.
A logical step on from that is recognising the importance of making best use, at all levels, of the available judicial resources. Just as it is important to use such resources to prosecute really serious crimes before the court, rather than use cautions, it is entirely sensible for the Bill to free up resources to deal with what are not regulatory, but essentially non-contentious—in so far as anything can be in the criminal justice system—matters. Many of us with experience of the criminal Bar will have been instructed as young, junior advocates on behalf of the prosecution—no doubt happily for us and our fortunately moderate bank balances—to read through and prove a whole list of traffic offences, even in instances of non-appearance. The empty courtroom could have been used for other cases, but time and again we would read out section 9 statements and produce various certificates of conviction that the traffic lights were working properly and heaven knows what, just to prove a case that nobody was arguing about. Removing that anomaly is an important, valuable and major step forward. I will not repeat the point that there are sensible safeguards built into the system for those who want to argue their case.
By way of digression, once upon a time there was—I think there still is—an offence of failing to provide a statutory statement of ownership. In those days, my earnings at the Bar were greatly boosted by being standing counsel to Croydon council and invariably turning up to prosecute such matters without anyone turning up to contest them. That is an extreme example, because sometimes cases got appealed and nobody turned up at the Crown court to prosecute the appeal either. Removing that sort of nonsense from the system has to be in everybody’s interest.
Ensuring that there is an open and publicly accessible record of the system is sensible, because it means that we need not clog up a fully equipped courtroom with witness facilities and other valuable resources that could be used for a contested hearing. It could be done in an anteroom and the press could be provided with access to the results. That is an entirely sensible and proportionate response, for which the Government are to be commended.
A number of the other changes are very useful and sensible. I will not go into the details, but I welcome the changes in relation to rape. Pornographic depiction of rape does seem an obvious matter to deal with—Rape Crisis South London in my constituency has done a lot of work on it—and I am glad that that has been recognised. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton would agree with me that there may still be gaps in the adequacy of sentencing for other sexual offences, particularly in relation to videos and DVDs of various kinds—we might be able to look at that in due course—but the change is a valuable step forward that we should all welcome.
I am pleased about the arrangements for costs. I was very often instructed to apply for costs against a convicted defendant. That was fine as far as it went—effectively, only the prosecution costs could be awarded, and whatever legal aid contribution was made—but it is legitimate to go further. After all, we are talking about only those who have been convicted. It is currently regarded as a legitimate and proper means of sentencing to give a discount for a guilty plea to reflect, first, remorse; secondly, the potential avoidance of trauma for witnesses; and thirdly, the saving to court time. Those are all legitimate factors, and if we regard the saving of court time as a legitimate factor in the equation for a penalty in the broadest sense, it is not unreasonable to calculate costs more realistically in terms of the totality of court time, rather than just of prosecution costs or an amount towards legal aid. The very sensible change will add to the transparency of the arrangements being put in place.
The change in relation to jurors is valuable. I am particularly pleased about that because my constituent Mr Graham Pound from Bromley specifically raised that matter with me. I received a very sympathetic response from the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, who was of course not able to indicate exactly what he had in mind, but I know that Mr Pound is delighted with the outcome, which reflects reality. Although I accept that there are differences, I have a measure of sympathy with the suggestion that we might go further. My only query with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley is that there is a difference between the burden of jury service that we expect someone to undertake, which is generally for a comparatively limited period, and the burden of being a busy member of the bench in a busy magistrates court or of sitting full time as a circuit judge.
In relation to the judiciary—I suspect that such matters could be dealt with by regulation—there might be an advantage in bringing back some recently retired senior circuit judges to sit in the Court of Appeal, as they perhaps did before they retired, while sparing them the burden of presiding over their home courts as resident judges. That might be a very modest first step in maintaining a degree of judicial independence, particularly in the criminal system, because by no means all High Court judges will have the degree of experience of criminal cases at first instance and of regularly sentencing heavy crime that those recently retired circuit judges have. I commend that thought to the Minister as a means of building on the welcome proposals about juries.
I also welcome the changes on the whole question of judicial review. A different part of my experience kicks in on that—as a local councillor and a Minister. I accept the proposition made by the shadow Secretary of State and other Opposition Members that there is a role for judicial review, which can have the salutary effect of concentrating the mind of decision makers and those who advise them. After all, it is not proposed to abolish judicial review, but, equally, it must be approached with a degree of proportion. One difficulty has been a lack of balance and proportion in its use. That is a shame, because there is a risk that a valuable tool, which can be a safeguard for individuals, may become discredited by overuse and exploitation by individuals or groups for what are often seen as partisan, if not party political, means or entirely self-serving ones. The Bill rightly seeks to rectify that.
I am perhaps even older than my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who talked about being a young Bar student in the ’80s and learning about administrative law. When I did my law exams in the 1970s, judicial review was a very recent concept. It was coming back into existence, thanks largely to Lord Denning. Nowadays, we do not consider him to have been a judge with the most liberal of sentiments, but he was seen as rather radical in those days.
Until the late ’60s and early ’70s, there was virtually no administrative law in this country. It is therefore slightly over-egging the case for judicial review to say, as even some distinguished judges do, that it has been an inherent part of our system since Magna Carta. That is not correct. It has grown up from a root that was in the common law. Through the various prerogative orders, such as mandamus and certiorari, it was constructed by judges into a judicial tool as society and government action became more complex in the ’50s and ’60s. It is a fairly recent feature of our system and it fulfils a valuable role.
Judicial review came into existence because the system needed to be flexible. Perhaps Members will remember Lord Denning telling a former Labour Attorney-General,
“Be you never so high, the law is above you.”
That was in reference to a Labour Government behaving in a peremptory fashion. If the system needed to be flexible at that time, it is equally reasonable to say now, when the industry that has grown up around judicial review has become so oppressive that it has overbalanced the system, that we should pull it back into proportion. That puts what the Secretary of State is seeking to do into its proper context.
Some of the proposals are sensible and straightforward. I do not think that anyone disputes that it is sensible to have the same time limit for a judicial review as for a statutory challenge under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Nobody has argued with the reduction in the time limit, because anybody who has dealt with planning matters knows that, particularly now that there has to be so much pre-application disclosure and there can be written representations from objectors and so on, the issues are very well crystallised in people’s minds. I suspect that that is not the most contentious issue.
There are issues with clause 50, although I do not share the criticism of it. I approach it from a slightly different angle. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable to move from the current inevitability test to a test of whether the outcome is likely to have been affected. Ironically, the current inevitability test seems to import something rather like the criminal burden of proof of reasonable doubt—or perhaps an even greater burden of proof—into what is essentially a civil procedure. It is not unreasonable to move to something that is closer to the normal test in civil proceedings of the balance of probabilities.
It is argued that we must act almost punitively to be a constraint on bad decision makers. However, I would have thought that clause 50 contained enough flexibility to provide a more balanced approach, to prevent judicial review from falling into disrepute when somebody wins on a purely technical error by a decision maker that was under no circumstances taken in malice or made negligently, and that would under no circumstances make any difference to the outcome. It is not unreasonable to say that the costs of a judicial review should not be fully provided in those circumstances.
We generally expect much more transparency in decision making in this country. In relation to clause 51, I think that that ought to apply, to a degree, to judicial decision making and to the judicial process generally. Because more and more judicial reviews are, in reality, supported and funded by groups—sometimes lobby groups, sometimes commercial groups that may have an interest—it is legitimate for the taxpayer and law-abiding citizens to have an idea about the source of that funding and, to some degree, the real motive behind the judicial review. Clause 51 is a proportionate means for dealing with that. Similarly, interveners must be aware that a considerably greater cost will occur through a legitimate intervention, especially when—as we have all seen in some cases—the intervener may become the principal driver of the judicial review, and do much more to extend the length of the hearing than the initial parties. Under those circumstances, it is not unreasonable that they should bear the bulk of the risk, since they have driven the bulk of court time as a consequence of the way they pursued their intervention. I would argue that the Bill contains a balanced package on judicial review that should commend itself to the House.
I will not dwell on what might have been in the Bill as I think what it contains is good and valuable. I am, however, a little tempted by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley on the accountability of judges. I do not think the Bill is necessarily the right vehicle for that, but we are talking generally about improving the accountability of decision making, and about accountability and transparency within the system. Given that judicial decisions—in judicial review or otherwise —sometimes affect not only large bodies or the state but can affect individuals, there is perhaps an argument to be had about whether our current arrangements to ensure consistency of professionalism in the judiciary are adequate.
There is a strong case for saying that Parliament must be wary of trespassing on the independence of the judiciary. However, I had in my casework a constituent who was seriously aggrieved in the national press because of an inaccurate judgment. In the obiter dicta of the case, the judge quoted wrongly from the papers before him, but released the judgment to the press, with considerable adverse publicity for the person concerned. There is, therefore, an argument for saying that when the Office for Judicial Complaints says, “Unfortunately that is not within our powers because he turned up and he wasn’t drunk and he wasn’t abusive in these terms. There is nothing we can do about this”, we might think that is not really fair. Would we not expect a professional judge to get the facts right and to have read the papers properly? That is an interesting area to consider.
That brings me to my final point, which is that, ultimately, the court system is about transparency and balance. Sometimes balance shifts one way or another, and it is the job of this House, and Parliament as a legislature, to decide on the appropriate balance in the circumstances in which we find it. I agree with the Secretary of State that the balance has moved too far one way, and the Bill seeks to redress that. I therefore commend it to the House.
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. For far too many years we have had a tradition of Governments—Conservative and Labour—trying to talk tough on crime and repeatedly aiming for the tabloid commentary, rather than dealing with the underlying causes of crime. That is why I am pleased that we are taking a different approach now, ensuring that we work on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending and initial offending, and tackling the causes of crime together with other Departments. That is an important process and it is good to have restorative justice and various things such as that in the proposals.
The mark of a good and functioning society is low prison numbers and low crime, not how many people we can fit into prison. In 1980, the prison population was 44,000. The then Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, described that as “dangerously high”, yet we saw numbers continue to rise year after year, helped of course by the previous Government’s 3,600 new criminal offences. We saw a huge 54% increase in the prison population under the previous Government, who wanted to increase capacity to 96,000—almost two and a half times the number described by Willie Whitelaw as “dangerously high”. That is deeply alarming.
It is not just me who thinks that the previous Government made a huge mistake. It is good to see the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) back in his place. He has said:
“in office…it was a mistake to not focus more on the issue of reducing reoffending. We became hesitant in talking about rehabilitation and the merits of investment in bringing down re-offending rates. We got into the position whereby a focus on rehabilitation and reducing re-offending was seen as being soft on crime when in fact it is effective in reducing crime.”
He was right then—he clearly had not been previously—and it is good that this Government are acting on that, because it does make a huge difference. What we saw was a Government who jailed more people than anywhere else in Europe just to sound tough. We can take a better approach that will reduce crime, and that makes a big difference.
That applies to young people in particular. It is astonishing to look at the figures for young people. We have managed almost to halve the number of children serving custodial sentences, from 2,136 in May 2010 to 1,168 in December 2013. I am incredibly proud of that. In 2009, 600 children aged between 12 and 14 were locked up, some for summary offences. There may well be rare cases where somebody as young as 12 should be locked up, but they should be incredibly rare and I find it bizarre that hundreds of children suffered in that way. The Howard League for Penal Reform states:
“the refreshing approach of police forces across England and Wales to reduce the number of unnecessary child arrests, has allowed a renewed focus on crime prevention and alternatives to custody. Youth justice reinvestment pilots in Manchester and inner London boroughs have also shown how investment in diversion rather than criminal justice can yield benefits in terms of public safety.”
We can make the public safer and not lock children up.
Dr Huppert
No. We heard enough from the hon. Gentleman in his rather long speech earlier. I know he disagrees with Churchill. He probably finds Churchill far too liberal for his own tastes, as he probably was when he criticised road tax.
What I do not want to see is children and young people languishing in detention and coming out and reoffending. That is absolutely not the right thing to do. It is not right for anybody—the Offender Rehabilitation Bill aims to help people with short sentences, which will help—but it is particularly the case for young people. I was pleased to hear the Justice Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister say that we will double the time that young offenders spend in education from 15 hours a week to 30 hours a week by 2015. That was a manifesto commitment we made in 2010—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) very much remembers that—and something that we are delivering. It makes a difference. Education is a really important thing for these people, so that they can leave custody with skills and an education they can build on.
The secure college has to have an educational focus and that is what makes it good and worthwhile. By making it progressive rather than punitive, we will really engage with people, give them skills and help them to have a life later that does not involve going into crime. Many of these young people are vulnerable and damaged. We have to provide them with care and support in a safe and secure environment to help turn them back into citizens who will reintegrate into the community on release.
That is all very good, but I have some concerns that I will explore in Committee. Schedule 4 allows restraint to
“secure good order and discipline”.
That sounds worryingly Victorian. The courts have already said that that is not appropriate. I hope we can have clarity from the Government on what exactly is intended. I hope that that is not the intention of this Government.
Before I leave the subject of the number of people in prison, it is worth highlighting the changes in the female prison population, which has declined substantially. It was more than 4,000 when we came into office; it is now substantially below 4,000. That makes a big difference. Women’s prisons will become resettlement prisons, so that offenders serve their sentences as close to home as possible to maintain crucial family relationships, especially with children. There are times when women need to be punished in this way, but we need to help to ensure that afterwards they are able to engage better into society and do not suffer the problems that they could be left with.
I am concerned about the criminal courts charge. I heard what the Justice Secretary said, but I am still concerned that it will end up being unenforceable and skew the way our system works. Justice has made it clear that it is
“concerned that the imposition of a charge may have an unfair bearing on the exercise of a person’s right to plead not guilty, and therefore the presumption of innocence.”
How will it apply to appeals? Will people not be able to take advantage of their right of appeal because of concern about cost?
I was interested by what the Justice Secretary said about the £1.4 billion that was owed to the Courts and Tribunals Service. He talked a lot about dead people; I did not fully understand what he was saying. However, if another charge is added to the list, given that he said that that this would be the lowest priority, far less of it will be collected than the 80% that goes to the top priority. That seems obvious, because it will decay faster and faster.
The Justice Secretary said that if people did not reoffend, the charge would be written off. I should like to know more about how that would operate, but, again, far less would be collected. I am also very concerned about how the charge could be recovered without disproportionate enforcement costs, particularly in relation to the contractors involved. I am also worried about whether there is sufficient discretion in the process.
I am still concerned about tagging. I believe that there have still been no successful prosecutions for violations of tagging curfews when people have challenged the prosecutions and pleaded not guilty. Professor Ross Anderson of the University of Cambridge and others have been expert witnesses in cases that have been dropped on the basis of their evidence, because the tags have been proved not to be sufficiently reliable. I should have thought that there were better ways of spending money, especially given that the tags are not satisfactory.
I am very pleased that the Justice Secretary has given ground on judicial review. Many of us have been pressing him on that for some time, and I am glad that he has now taken some sensible steps. It is really important for ordinary people to be able to challenge the Government. We need transparency, and the Government are pushing for it; shielding the Government from legal challenge by clamping down on judicial review would run completely contrary to that. However, I am still concerned about the changes in relation to interveners. Third parties add important value and expertise to cases, at great cost to themselves and in the wider public interest. I did not think that the Justice Secretary addressed my concern about cases in which people intervene, as opposed to cases involving the “human shield” that he described. That is not the only kind of case involved.
Courts already have strong powers to control interveners. They accept only interventions that are in the public interest. Baroness Hale, the deputy president of the Supreme Court, has said:
“Once a matter is in court, the more important the subject, the more difficult the issues, the more help we”
—the judges—
“need to try and get the right answer… interventions are enormously helpful… . They usually supply arguments and authorities, rather than factual information, which the parties may not have supplied.”
Interveners play a very important role, but the Bill would require them to bear not just their own costs—which are not recouped, which I understand—but those of other parties whose involvement results from their intervention. The application of that could be incredibly broad. If someone intervened and that person’s intervention generated extra work to be done by someone else, the intervener would be billed for all of it. That would deter experts from giving useful and potentially instrumental evidence. We would shoot ourselves in the foot: court decisions would become worse, as the courts themselves have said.
The courts already have discretion to control who intervenes, how people intervene, and for how long they can intervene, and they can fine interveners whose interventions are unreasonable. That strikes me as a sensible balance. I think that the Bill goes too far in clamping down on interventions, and I hope that the Government will look at it more carefully. I understand that there may be cases in which intervention is inappropriate, but the Government must protect appropriate and important interventions,
There is much else that we shall need to consider in Committee, because the Bill contains a great deal of detailed material, but I think that the focus is right. I welcome much of what the Government are doing, but I think that they should concentrate even less on how many people can be locked up, and more on how much crime can be reduced.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is curious that a Government who did not think that they needed a Bill to dismantle criminal legal aid or to privatise the probation service should decide that they do need one to encourage courts to report wasted costs orders to the Bar Standards Board. It is also curious that a Lord Chancellor who is reluctant to debate the restriction of access to justice, or risks to public safety, can find plenty of parliamentary time in which to discuss age limits for jurors.
The Government have a curious sense of priorities; but the clue is in the phrase “find time”. We heard earlier that the Lord Chancellor was the only Cabinet Minister to volunteer to conjure up a Bill to fill the yawning void that is the last 15 months of the current Parliament—a carry-over Bill intended to mark time while the coalition parties manufacture disagreements to keep their own core voters happy. His reward—and I am pleased to see him in his place—was to miss the Cabinet’s day out in Aberdeen. There is no justice for the Justice Secretary.
However, I do not want to denigrate the Bill; I merely wish to set it in context. Although there are parts of it that we strongly oppose, much of it is unobjectionable, and some of it is even laudable. It makes sensible administrative changes, and introduces new offences that clarify or reinforce important parts of the law such as contempt, or address failings in the Government’s own legislation or practice. We are not going to find reasons to oppose such measures and, on balance, we will not oppose the Bill tonight, in the hope that improvements can be made before Third Reading.
I can do nothing but praise the quality of the debate today. We are fortunate to have heard from some of the most experienced and thoughtful Members on both sides, and I hope that the Minister will take on board their observations not only when he responds to the debate tonight but when he reviews the Bill in Committee. We have heard former Justice Ministers, including the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and from Select Committee Chairs including my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith). We have also heard from eminent practitioners such as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).
I hope, however, that none of those Members will be offended if I say that the most perceptive comments often came from those who show a lay interest in these matters. The hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) talked about exercising caution over the use of cautions and about education on the secure estate, and I agreed with much that my neighbour, the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), said in her tour d’horizon of the Bill. I was slightly confused, however, by the contributions of the hon. Members for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and for Shipley (Philip Davies). Both seemed to love the Bill, but one of them thought it was about restorative justice and reducing the prison population by 30,000 while the other thought it was about punishment and increasing the prison population by that number.
Mr Slaughter
Indeed, but the Lord Chancellor has at least managed to make both of them happy, and he should be praised for that, if for nothing else.
I want to make specific mention of the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who made robust defences of judicial review and of open justice. They correctly echoed the view expressed in the Campaign to Protect Rural England’s briefing that judicial review is
“used rarely by community groups in relation to planning decisions because it is costly and a significant and daunting undertaking.”
No one would imagine that, from what the Government have said today.
I shall take my cue from my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd in dealing first with the most contentious and objectionable part of the Bill—part 4, which covers judicial review. What is it about this Lord Chancellor and judicial review that the mention of it makes him behave in an irrational and unreasonable way? He has taken to the columns of the Daily Mail to denounce one of our most important constitutional safeguards as
“a promotional tool for countless Left-wing campaigners.”
It is unclear whether those left-wing campaigners include the Countryside Alliance, the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph, UKIP’s Stuart Wheeler and numerous Conservative councils, all of whom have initiated judicial reviews in recent times. However, the senior judiciary’s response to the Lord Chancellor’s consultation shot that particular fox when it stated that it had seen no
“evidence of inappropriate use of judicial review as a campaigning tool, and it is not the experience of the senior judiciary that this is a common problem.”
The Lord Chancellor has already taken bites out of judicial review by imposing additional fees and limiting the time for bringing a claim, in some cases to six weeks. He is also going to restrict the use of legal aid by statutory instrument, rather than through primary legislation. He would wish to hobble applicants more by restricting the recovery of costs until beyond the permission stage and allowing defendants to intervene at that stage with the prospect of recovering their costs. The Bill contains a variety of additional ways to discourage judicial review by increasing applicants’ costs or putting them at risk of paying defendants’ costs. Protective costs orders will not be abolished, but they will be available only in narrow circumstances and once permission is granted.
The worst aspects are in clauses 50 and 53, attacking both the raison d’être of judicial review to correct Executive error in decision making and the ability of third parties to intervene in the public interest and to assist the court. Already heavily criticised, the new test in clause 50 refuses permission where it is “highly likely” the outcome for the applicant
“would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred”.
This confuses unlawfulness with remedy. It will encourage bad decision making and it is likely to lead to a full trial of the issues at permission stage. Lord Pannick, in an article that has already been quoted today, has said that the clause will give the Government a
“get out of jail free card”,
and allow public bodies to
“avoid a hearing and judgment on the legality of their conduct.”
Under clause 53, third parties—often non-governmental organisations, charities and human rights organisations—that intervene in judicial reviews to clarify issues that often assist the court will now be severely discouraged from doing so by cost penalties. Yet Lady Justice Hale of the Supreme Court has said that
“interventions are enormously helpful…The most frequent are NGOs such as Liberty and Justice, whose commitment is usually to a principle rather than a person. They usually supply arguments and authorities, rather than factual information, which the parties may not have supplied.”
In aggregate, these proposals mean that only applicants of substantial means will be able to bring a claim or risk the costs of losing it. In a country without a written constitution, judicial review is one important way of holding the Executive to account. This Government want to insulate their bad decision making from legal challenge and place themselves outside the rule of law. They are strengthening Executive power and weakening a critical check on the power of the state. This Lord Chancellor, for misguided party political motives and as part of a sustained attack on access to justice, is undermining our civil liberties, and these changes should be against everything the Liberal Democrats stand for. Under this Government, seeking justice is getting harder and these proposals show them on the side of their corporate friends, not of individual citizens and communities. Politicians in power might find judicial review an awkward irritant, but that is precisely what it is intended to be. Combined with the cuts to legal aid, limitations on no win, no fee cases, and threats to the Human Rights Act and European convention, this proposal amounts to a sustained attack on the rights of individual citizens to hold those in power to account. As the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger puts it,
“one must be very careful about any proposals whose aim is to cut down the right to judicial review”.
He has also said:
“The courts have no more important function than that of protecting citizens from the abuses and excesses of the executive.”
We have serious concerns about other parts of the Bill. As they stand, the plans for secure colleges may prove damaging to thousands of young offenders in our criminal justice system. The Bill leaves a question mark over the future of secure children’s homes, which cater for the most vulnerable young people. Such homes typically house small numbers of children, provide intensive support and are staffed by highly qualified specialists in social care. The homes have good educational outcomes and are recognised as the preferred model of youth custody, but they look set to lose out to the Lord Chancellor’s new and untested pet project. It is untested according to the Government’s own impact assessment, but still £85 million is needed to build just one secure college.
The Justice Committee pointed out in its report last March that the average time in youth custody is only 79 days, so most young offenders would not be in a college long enough to improve their basic skills. What levels of training or qualification would the college staff have? Why will college custody officers be empowered to use “reasonable force” for the maintenance of “good order and discipline”? That may well be unlawful under the European convention on human rights, according to a Court of Appeal 2008 ruling and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which stated in 2007:
“Restraint or force can be used only when the child poses an imminent threat of injury to him or herself or others, and only when all other means of control have been exhausted. The use of restraint or force, including physical, mechanical and medical restraints, should be under close and direct control of a medical and/or psychological professional. It must never be used as a means of punishment.”
As regards part 3 of the Bill, we support the use of single justices, given that their jurisdiction will apply only to summary, non-imprisonable offences where an adult defendant pleads guilty. However, we object strongly to taking these cases out of the courtroom and into offices away from public view. Such an approach damages the principle of British justice that cases are heard and the results made known in public. This Government are too fond of secret courts, and even in minor cases the principle of open justice should be rarely departed from. We agree in principle that convicted criminals could contribute to the costs of trial, but the substantial amount of uncollected fines from criminals already totals more than £1 billion and it is likely that this proposal will just add to the total of uncollected moneys from criminals. We have no objection in principle to leapfrog appeals, for example, on issues of national importance, though they are most likely to be used by government trying to hurry the process up. The danger is that this simply overloads the Supreme Court and that the issues it has to deal with are insufficiently refined by earlier hearings.
It is a good idea to update the jury room process and the rules on reporting cases to accommodate the social media age. The Attorney-General is to be commended for taking a personal interest in the limitations on reporting and in discouraging jurors from using social media to research or publicise details of trials. However, the Government fail to provide any support to juries in explaining their roles and remit as part of any new offences, and it is not clear whether they have considered the full implications of the numbers of people using social media and the variety of methods available. We have no objection to raising the age of jury service to 75.
There are two glaring problems with part 1 of the Bill. It does not do what it says on the tin, which is to protect the public adequately from violent and dangerous offenders, but it does incur costs and prison resources that the Government do not have in place. I fear that the hon. Member for Shipley may have been slightly taken in by the rhetoric rather the actuality of what is in part 1. The changes to sentences for the most serious and violent criminals are a poor substitute for indeterminate sentences for public protection, which this Government abolished in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—[Interruption.] I do like to mention that, because it is the one thing that we both agree on.
Mr Slaughter
I am afraid that the Government have been playing catch-up ever since IPPs were abolished, but none of what is proposed offers the same level of public protection. The Government’s own impact assessment states that the sentencing changes will require 1,050 additional prison places, but there are fewer than half that currently available. It also states that the costs of additional custody are not quantified. We noted with concern the Lord Chancellor’s inability to answer any of the questions about his Department’s budgets. Proposals in part 1 will also see a greater work load for the Parole Board, with an additional 1,100 Parole Board hearings a year, according to the Government’s impact assessment. However, no additional resources are being made available, at a time when Parole Board staff numbers have already been cut by nearly one in five.
We support the ban on the possession of extreme pornographic images depicting rape and other non-consensual sexual penetration. That is a welcome victory for campaign groups such as Rape Crisis South London and the End Violence Against Women Coalition. We support the restrictions on the use of simple cautions.
Criminal justice Bills have a reputation for being Christmas tree Bills, and this one is no different. It is a mixture of the minor and non-contentious with some major, damaging and poorly thought-out measures, such as those in part 4, which, if they survive here, will be butchered in the other place.
This is also quite a mean little Bill, reflecting the character of its author. It further limits the rights of the citizen against the state, and it scratches around to find some more savings because the Treasury has been overpromised. Desperate to impress the Prime Minister, this is the best that the Secretary of State could come up with. Much of it is unexceptional or unobjectionable. It is legislation for legislation’s sake, and is designed to fill an intellectual and actual void in the Government’s programme. It is irrelevant to the big issues being played out in our justice system. It reinforces the growing view in the country that it is time for this failing Lord Chancellor and this Government to move on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I start by thanking all Members, on both sides of the House, who have spoken today? The debate has been both considered and thorough, and the number of points that have been raised confirms the importance of the issues before us.
As my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor set out at the start of this debate, the Bill represents the next stage of our reforms to deliver a cost-effective justice system in which the public can have real confidence. The key elements of the Bill will deliver a firm but fair package of sentencing and criminal law reforms, which will properly punish serious and repeat offenders and better protect victims and the public. We are clear that people who break the law will not escape the law.
The Bill provides for the creation of secure colleges, putting education at the very heart of youth custody, giving young offenders the tools they need to lead a life away from crime. We are modernising the law to tackle the influence of the internet on trials by jury to ensure that defendants receive a fair trial, reflecting how technology and the wealth of information available at the touch of a button has changed the way in which we live. We will reduce the burden of the cost of courts on hard-working taxpayers by making sure that criminals pay towards the cost of their court cases. The Bill will make critical reforms to judicial review, to tackle unmeritorious claims and unnecessary delays in the system.
Members have raised a number of issues, many of which will, of course, be debated further in Committee. However, I should like to touch on some of the points made by colleagues. They will forgive me for not being able to mention every point made in every speech, but I shall try to cover as many of them as I possibly can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) started by commenting on the proposals for single magistrates to deal with low-level, uncontested cases. This issue was touched on by a number of other colleagues. Let me be clear that we are talking about low-level, uncontested cases. Let me also be clear that where someone wishes to contest a case, they can have it heard before two or three magistrates and it can be dealt with in the usual way. This proposal is for cases—the vast majority of them—where people simply do not bother to turn up or reply, or if they do, they plead guilty.
Karl Turner
If that is the Government’s intention, why does the Bill not say that?
Mr Vara
It does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon spoke about the age limit for jurors being raised from 70 to 75. The reason is that we must recognise that people are now living longer and healthier lives. It is important that jurors reflect society at large. If society is growing older, we need to ensure that jurors, who decide cases, reflect that. I accept that we have a problem in attracting young people to become magistrates, and we must continue to try to address that issue, but that is not to say that we should not increase the age.
On court costs, several colleagues were concerned about the rate of recovery. Let me clarify the point. At present, the recovery rates for compensation, fines and the victim surcharge stands at 80%, and there is no reason to believe that court charges will not be recovered at similar rate.
Dr Huppert
We heard earlier that such charges would be the lowest priority of claim. The Justice Secretary was clear on that. Surely, if only 80% of the higher priority claims are collected and some people run out of money when they have paid the highest priority, a lower proportion of the low-priority claims will be collected.
Mr Vara
My hon. Friend needs to appreciate that the time lag will be longer. This will be the last element to be claimed. It will be claimed after the others. There will be a priority element, and this will be the last bit. There is no reason to conclude that, if the other four criteria have been met with an 80% collection rate, the fifth one will not.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—I hope that I have pronounced the constituency name correctly, or close enough—had concerns about prison places. As the Justice Secretary said in his opening remarks, in the next 15 or so months, we expect that there will be some 2,000 more places, and Wrexham prison will have more than 2,000 places by 2017. He raised secure colleges. I emphasise that the aim is to reduce reoffending and have the expertise to provide for educational needs.
Kate Green
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. How does he think that the public will react to the concept of 350 fairly seriously offending young men living on a single site in their neighbourhood?
Mr Vara
There are institutions of a custodial nature in which the numbers of people are far more than that at the moment. They will not all live in one unit. There will be separate units and different age groups and categories of people. I see no reason why, at a more cost-effective rate, we cannot seek to do what is not happening at present: reduce reoffending rates.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd also spoke of the possible use of force, and that issue was also raised by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I will just point out that the Bill sets up secure colleges but it does not speak of using force. That issue needs to be addressed later, when it comes to dealing with the rules for secure colleges. I recognise that it is an important issue, which needs to be dealt with sensitively, and I am sure that when those rules are drawn up, that is how it will be dealt with.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) gave a very supportive speech and spoke with experience of having been a Minister both in my Department and in the Home Office. His arguments were well reasoned and he spoke about early release, electronic tagging and a number of other issues. He pointed out to the House that the magistracy that we have been discussing has been with us for some 650 years.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) also raised the issue of magistrates sitting on their own and I hope that I have covered that. He also touched on the issue of judicial reviews, as did the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), in a number of interventions, and other hon. Members. Let me be clear about this point too. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor did not say that all claims were being made by left-wing campaign groups, but it is a fact that some claims have been or are made by such groups. The hon. Lady herself admitted, in one of her interventions, that before she entered the House, she ran a group and was regularly involved in judicial reviews. If people are going to throw ammunition at this side, it is important that they at least put things in context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) spoke with experience and was right to put education at the heart of secure colleges. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston continues to mutter away, but I suggest that she looks at Hansard tomorrow morning. My hon. Friend was right to highlight the issue of education and I am grateful for his general approval for all that the Government are doing.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also spoke of secure colleges. I emphasise to him that, as I said earlier, there will be separate units to cater for different categories of people in those colleges rather than everyone being in one structure.
As far as the magistrates courts are concerned, there was concern about openness and transparency—
Mr Vara
I will not give way, as I want to make progress. I believe that I have been generous in taking a number of interventions, but I have limited time.
The issue of openness and transparency was raised, and I want to make it clear that each magistrates court publishes within its court buildings daily lists of cases being heard at that court. All magistrates courts routinely make lists of case results available to the local media, and the criminal procedure rules also oblige courts to give certain additional information on cases in response to third-party requests. I also want to put on the record that we are looking at further ways of making court processes and outcomes more transparent, including exploring the possibility of publishing court outcomes electronically.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Simon Reevell) reflected his experience at the Bar in the issues that he raised, and I am grateful for his support for the measures that we are introducing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was characteristically robust and raised a number of issues. I am delighted, as I am sure the Chief Whip is, that he supports the proposals that we are seeking to introduce today, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor is appreciative of the personal congratulations that he conveyed to him earlier on introducing these measures.
My hon. Friend mentioned the magistrates courts; I assure him that our intention is to ensure that the proposals are confined to low-level offences. He also asked an important question: why can the maximum age of jurors be raised from 70 to 75, when a similar age increase is not allowed for magistrates and judges? One of the reasons is that jurors will work on one trial, and then return to their daily, routine lives, whereas magistrates and judges have to play their role day in, day out, and of course that is completely different from jurors sitting on odd cases.
My hon. Friend will be aware that there are transitional arrangements in place. When the rule about the age of 70 came in for the judiciary, those judges who were still in place could opt to work until they were 75. He also spoke of judges being held to account. All I would say to that is that we have to be mindful that the judiciary is an independent section of our constitution.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) for her supportive comments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who, again, spoke of his personal experience at the Bar. He was right to refer to the man on the Clapham omnibus and the use of common sense. Many of the proposals that we are introducing are absolutely that: common-sense proposals with which the majority of the public would agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) is right to highlight Labour’s record in government, because all that Labour Members, and certainly its Front Benchers, have been doing is complaining, rather than acknowledging their errors when in government. He also spoke about secure colleges. He is right to say that no one wants young children to reoffend. He is absolutely correct when he says that we have to give them education, and the skills and discipline to ensure that they can lead productive lives. Like others, he referred to the issue of force, but I hope that he accepts that I have given reassurance on that. He was concerned about the court charges that we propose, and I have dealt with that issue.
I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), both senior Members of the House and Chairmen of important Select Committees. Their contributions reflected their expertise and breadth of knowledge.
The Bill toughens up terrorism and terrorism-related offences and ends automatic early release for certain serious, violent and sexual offences. The new secure colleges will place education at the heart of youth custody, ensuring that young people acquire the skills, qualifications and self-discipline to lead productive lives on release, and break away from the cycle of reoffending.
It has to be right for criminals who use the courts to pay towards the cost of running them, thereby reducing the burden on hard-working taxpayers. We are also putting in place important measures to deal with the growing number of unmeritorious judicial review applications that are clogging up our court system and putting additional burdens on public services. The consequences of the internet world that we live in simply cannot be ignored. That is why we are ensuring that jurors base their decisions on the evidence put before them, and not on the results of a Google search. These and the other measures in this Bill are important, sensible and necessary. They represent a critical next step in strengthening confidence in our justice system, and providing safety and security for people and their communities. I welcome all the contributions made today, and I assure the House that many of the issues raised will be debated in further detail in Committee.
Finally, I note that we have a new clock, which shows seconds, and not just minutes as the one before did. Happily, I can assure the House that I do not have to rely on the seconds today; I am more than happy to finish a little early—by minutes, rather than seconds. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 1 April 2014.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Claire Perry.)
Question agreed to.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (MONEY)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown under or by virtue of the Act, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Claire Perry.)
Question agreed to.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (WAYS AND MEANS)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
(1) the imposition on persons convicted of offences of charges relating to the costs of providing criminal courts; and
(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Claire Perry.)
Question agreed to.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (CARRY-OVER)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Claire Perry.)
Business without Debate
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Committees
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Parks
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I am proud to represent a constituency that extends from the hill farms of Dartmoor to the coast, encompassing some of the loveliest areas of outstanding natural beauty. I am proud, too, to say that we are very much open for business, despite the recent battering from the storms.
I am fortunate to have lived and worked in rural Dartmoor for 21 years. I have no conflict of interest in this debate, but I have real concerns about the unintended consequences if we proceed with permitted development rights without the need for planning permission to convert up to three dwellings or to replace existing farm buildings across rural Dartmoor and areas of outstanding natural beauty. I commend the Minister for his comments and entirely agree about the need to address the inter- generational unfairness that exists within housing. We should allow people to aspire to affordable housing. I absolutely agree that we need to build more homes, but we need to build homes that people can afford to live in. That is my concern.
Permitted development rights would allow buildings of up to 150 square metres—nearly twice the guideline amount for affordable housing—so we will see development of larger properties. Within AONBs and the national parks—the measure will affect all 10 national parks—I fear that that will lead to the creation of more second homes and luxury homes, rather than the affordable housing that we need to breathe life into our rural communities. I hope that the Minister will also look at the unintended consequences. As he will know, one of the chief ways to lever in exception sites is deployed when landowners know that there is no other mechanism to obtain planning permission. That is a genuine concern, and we have already seen a chilling effect on land prices and the availability of affordable land for development.
There is a further concern. The historic farmstead survey of Dartmoor looks at pre-1914 farmsteads, of which there are 1,100 across Dartmoor. Each of those has three to four outbuildings. Clearly, not all of those would be suitable for development, but it is estimated that around 2,000 would be suitable for conversion, and that is within Dartmoor alone. That does not include the 1,500 to 2,000 properties that are non-heritage buildings. So we are potentially looking at up to 4,000 properties, each of which could be converted to three dwellings. On top of that is all the accompanying infrastructure in terms of driveways and parking.
There is a real concern in our national parks about the impact that such development could have on our landscapes, but even more important is what will happen when we lose 4,000 farm buildings from the moor. If there are 4,000 fewer farm buildings, there is less agriculture on the moor. Having lived for two decades on Dartmoor, I have seen the changes that there have been to grazing. If cattle and sheep are lost from moorland, there is a degradation from heather towards gorse. It is important that we keep farming on the moor. In lower lying areas, we are already seeing more pony paddocks and we are losing the unique environment that is part of the reason why tourists come to Dartmoor in the first place. The landscape that we see across the moor is critical to our environment.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
As the name of my constituency suggests, half of it falls within the South Downs national park, the newest one to be created. Was not the whole purpose of creating national parks that protection of the landscape should have primacy wherever there is a conflict with economic development? We are at risk of losing that if we allow the creation of a suburbia within the national parks and inappropriate development, new haciendas and gin palaces, instead of maintaining the character of the parks and the landscape, which was precisely why they were created.
Dr Wollaston
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg—the very reason why people come to Dartmoor. The creation of the national parks was described as the people’s charter for fresh air. These are crucially important landscapes for us to protect. Overdevelopment would destroy that. This is not about saying that we should stop all development within national parks. All of us recognise the need to support hill farmers. They may be asset-rich but they survive on very low cash flows.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
I broadly agree with my hon. Friend’s argument that we do not want to see overdevelopment in our national parks, or major development of any kind, but does she agree that some of our national park authorities have been over-negative in the past in not allowing reasonable and sympathetic development, which perhaps would persuade the Minister, who I know is listening very carefully to my every word, that we do not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut and there is some compromise to be had?
Dr Wollaston
I entirely agree. A lot of this is about streamlining the processes; but I know that the national parks want to support affordable housing. Within the national park the average house price is in excess of £270,000. That is nine times the median income, and 16 times the lower quartile income, so we do need development.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I have some experience of this scenario in the Snowdonia national park. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the buildings she refers to are unsuitable for agriculture these days, and if we just leave them, they will deteriorate over time and will not be of any attraction to tourists either?
Dr Wollaston
My hon. Friend adds to the point that we are not asking for no development across our national parks, but rather for discretion on a case-by-case basis. Absolutely, they must support farmers. We want farmers to have the ability to diversify, but we do not want a wholesale shift towards development, with farmers losing agriculture and moving entirely towards running holiday businesses and letting properties. It is a matter of degree. Yes, I would like to join him in encouraging national parks to support development, but to do so in a sustainable way that recognises the importance of keeping agriculture and sustaining our most precious and fragile ecosystems across the country for all our national parks. That applies not only to national parks, but to areas of outstanding natural beauty—
Dr Wollaston
With regard to areas of outstanding natural beauty, I would like to mention some points that have been raised with me by a local councillor in the village of South Pool in my constituency.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing an Adjournment debate on such an important topic. Does she share my concern that removing such buildings from agricultural use means taking away a route for young entrants into farming and preventing them from engaging in the farming community?
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend for making that extremely important point. We need to attract young farmers into farming, and not only to lowland farms, but to hill farms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing the matter before the House for consideration. I represent Strangford, a constituency in Northern Ireland that is just as beautiful as her own—perhaps a little more beautiful, in my opinion—and also an area of outstanding natural beauty. Strict planning controls laid down by the Northern Ireland Assembly enable farmers to build their dwellings but at the same time retain the countryside. Does she feel that that example in Northern Ireland could be followed here on the UK mainland?
Dr Wollaston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point, reiterating what many hon. Members have said. This is not about saying that there should be no development; it is about allowing controlled development on a case-by-case basis, rather than having an automatic permitted development right, which I think could lead to something altogether different and entirely unintended by the Minister.
Councillor Elizabeth Bennett, a parish councillor in South Pool, has made an important point about the effect on localism, which I know the Minister feels very passionate about. He has made the point that localism does not mean that we should see no development at all, because communities have to take responsibility for supplying housing for local people. It is about deciding where and how that takes place. The current arrangements deny parish councils the ability to comment on planning proposals.
Councillor Elizabeth Bennett also raised the concern about communities such as South Pool never being able to attain access to exception sites because they are not on a bus route and do not have the amenities of a village school. Nevertheless, those communities are desperately short of housing for local people. In fact, South Pool has some of the highest property values in the country. The ratios between earnings and property value are in excess of 10, so any access to local housing is entirely beyond the means of local people. Will the Minister look at extending that access so that projects such as the wonderful village housing initiative can be encouraged to bring in more exception sites within areas of outstanding natural beauty.
This is not about asking for no development; it is about asking for the right development, and for homes that people actually live in. I would not wish the Minister to think that I am saying that all second homes are bad. As he knows, many second home owners become permanent residents within a few years. They bring in a huge amount of income to local communities, particularly when they let out their properties when they are not using them. However, it is a matter of degree and scale, and he will know that there are many parts of our AONBs and national parks where the balance has shifted too far in the direction of second home owners. That can lead to dormitory communities where the lights are hardly ever on, except in season and at the weekends.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Much of the debate so far has been about Dartmoor, half of which is in my constituency, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity to contribute. I agree with her that we do not want some kind of blanket arrangement that would allow absolutely every application to convert a barn into a residential dwelling. We need to cherry-pick the right options, as she has suggested. What changes to the current planning arrangements, as exercised by Dartmoor national park, for example, does she think would introduce that flexibility in the appropriate manner?
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour from Dartmoor for making that point. The change I would like to see would give our national parks and AONBs the ability to opt out of the arrangements as they stand in allowing automatic permitted development rights. I would like a change in the wording so that they have more powers to lever in land for affordable housing developments, because that is what we crucially need for our communities. My hon. Friend will know about the effect whereby we lose young people and families from rural communities, which might mean that we cannot find nurses who will work in a community hospital or, on the coast, we find that there are not enough people to man the lifeboats.
It is really important that young people and families are able to live, work and volunteer within our local communities. I would love to see whether the Minister can bring in any measures to make that easier so that we can genuinely get affordable housing rather than asking for a change to no housing. We must recognise that our national parks and AONBs need our protection; they do not need unrestricted permitted development rights. I hope that the Minister will give some encouragement to the national parks and all those who love them that there will be a change to the wording.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
In order to cheer my hon. Friend up a bit, may I ask my hon. Friend whether she thinks that the Government are exercising a degree of expectation management? The proposal that national parks such as the New Forest should be open to this sort of unregulated development is so preposterous that I cannot help wondering whether it has been put up as a kite so that the Government can then dismiss it and make a great concession by doing the obvious thing, which is to exclude places like the New Forest and Dartmoor from these ridiculous provisions. I wonder whether she agrees with the New Forest National Park Authority, which says:
“It will make a mockery of our planning rules when a resident in Southampton will still need planning permission for a dormer window, but three houses can be built in the middle of the New Forest National Park”
without any such permission?
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend. His final point is very pertinent, but I do not share his cynicism, because I know that the Minister is absolutely committed to the important aspiration for people to be able to have access to housing. Having lived on Dartmoor for a long time and seen the pressures that people are under, I feel that there are genuinely some unintended consequences that I hope he will encourage us to address.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend recognise that people in my constituency use Dartmoor very regularly and do not want to see it deteriorate at all? Conservation at the national park is a great asset to the local community.
Dr Wollaston
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. This is not just about people who live within national parks and AONBs but those who use them and feel passionately about their importance and the need to conserve this very precious landscape.
It would really help us all to hear the Minister’s comments on the many wonderful projects that are out there encouraging affordable housing. I know that he has visited Don Lang of the Land Society. I am very encouraged to hear today’s comments by the Secretary of State about how we can bring down costs for self-builders. It would be helpful if the Minister were able to elaborate on that. I hope that he is able to provide the reassurance we are all seeking that we will not see unrestrained building across our national parks but, rightly, the building of affordable housing that sustains living communities and brings young people and families back into our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Mr Speaker
To reply to the debate, I call the Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government, Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
I hope it is not cheeky of me to observe that the best debates and discussions tend to take place within the Conservative party with a contribution from the Democratic Unionist party, and that we do not miss Her Majesty’s Opposition on this occasion.
Nick Boles
I will glide over that point.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on securing this debate. I have rarely seen so many Members stay voluntarily until a late hour in order to contribute to an Adjournment debate. It is important that we have the opportunity to discuss the issue, especially because the proposal on which the Government are consulting does not require primary legislation and would not therefore trigger a debate on the Floor of the House. I greatly welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has raised it.
I will briefly set out the context of the broader proposal before moving on to the question of its application to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. It will not be news to you, Mr Speaker, that I seem to spend quite a lot of my life fending off attacks from people who suggest that we should not build any new houses on green fields. I have listened to that concern—I sometimes hear it from hon. Friends, some of whom are present this evening—and have concluded that it is very important that we reassure people that we are making the absolute best possible use of every existing building in the country and that we are maximising the value we get out of developed land so that we do not need to build on undeveloped land more than is absolutely necessary.
I am the first to admit that we are not going to be able to satisfy our housing needs entirely from currently developed land, but it is important that everybody is reassured that we are trying to be inventive in thinking about ways to reuse buildings that no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally designed, and to do so in a way that meets their maximum economic and social value.
Dr Julian Lewis
The Minister is being very courteous, as always, in giving way. Surely, in judging areas of such sensitivity as national parks, the body that has to be able to decide these matters is not central Government with a blanket rule but the national park authorities themselves, so why is there this blanket rule which will take away their discretion?
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend anticipates the question of whether the proposed relaxation, or permitted development right, should apply to national parks. I was setting out the broad case for introducing a permitted development right in the country that would make it easier to convert agricultural buildings into homes. Having done so, it is now entirely legitimate to ask whether it would be appropriate to extend that right to national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty—or, in the planning jargon, section 15 land. We have undertaken a genuine consultation on the issue; it is not an issue on which the Government had a firm view and were just pretending to consult.
Nick Boles
It is a matter that we wanted to hear debated and on which we wanted to take many representations, including from my hon. Friend.
Andrew Bingham
I congratulate the Minister, because he has been to High Peak and has sat with the chairman of the Peak District national park authority, Councillor Tony Favell, who has made the point that surely this should remain within the gift of the national park authorities. They are the local people: this is localism and it is about the local area. Surely it should remain with them, rather than there being a blanket rule and away you go.
Nick Boles
I thank my hon. Friend for having invited me to his glorious constituency and arranging the meeting with the chairman of the Peak District national park authority. That is one of four meetings I have had in the past month with National Parks England, the Campaign for National Parks in High Peak, a group of Members of Parliament who represent national parks, and a senior representative of the South Downs national park. This has been a genuine process of engagement with national parks and those who represent them and of understanding the particular issues.
You know how much trouble I would get into, Mr Speaker, if I were to presume to anticipate the conclusion of a Government decision-making process and the securing of Cabinet clearance for such a decision. I can, nevertheless, point to the fact that in other areas where we have introduced an extended permitted development right, we have listened to the concerns raised and modified the original proposals, so I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes and all other hon. Members who have spoken. They include, not least, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), who must forgive me for being in some awe and fear of the deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), and therefore being slightly distracted. We have listened to the very powerful and very persuasive arguments made, and we are genuinely taking them fully into account in reaching our final conclusion on how the permitted development right should work.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I know that the Minister never wants to be in trouble, but back in September, when he showed a bit of leg on this matter, he said that national parks
“are some of the most beautiful parts of the country”—
I represent a bit of the South Downs national park—
“and it is right that we accord them a different status from other beautiful landscapes and approach development issues slightly differently.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 302WH.]
I suggest that he was hanging something out there for us back in September.
Nick Boles
My hon. Friends—and good friends they all are—have accused me of flying kites, showing leg and hanging out there, which I venture to suggest is borderline unparliamentary language.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) that no such cynicism could ever possibly enter into these considerations. Sometimes a Minister genuinely asks an open question because they do not quite know the answer. I do not represent a national park—I represent some very beautiful countryside, but I am relatively persuaded that the permitted development right would be appropriate there—but my hon. Friends in the Chamber and many other hon. Members represent national parks, and they understand the difficult balancing act between their preservation and the encouragement of life and vigour. It is very right and proper that hon. Members and national park representatives should make the arguments that they have made.
I simply say that if the Government were to decide that the permitted development right should not apply to section 15 land, it would nevertheless be important to encourage national parks to be positive about proposals for conversions of agricultural buildings that no longer fulfil a purpose in modern agriculture, because of their scale and materials, to housing—and not just affordable housing, although that is desperately needed in national parks, but sometimes housing for owners of second homes. We are all aware of cases of national park authorities being reluctant ever to entertain the possibility that a modern—sympathetic, sensitive and well-designed—reconversion of an old building might benefit a national park or the beauty that makes it a national park.
Miss McIntosh
Will my hon. Friend address the issue of agricultural buildings being taken but not used, particularly in relation to new entrants who find it so difficult to enter into agricultural business in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty or any hill area in North Yorkshire, because they do not have family there and there is nowhere for them to live or work?
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is not directly within my ministerial brief, but it is a serious point. I simply venture to suggest that in relation to keeping old barns as old barns—if they are not currently used in modern agriculture—it would be relatively rare that a new farmer could start up a business from one of those buildings in a way that they could not do elsewhere. My hon. Friend’s concern is absolutely valid, and I would be very happy to talk to Ministers in the responsible Department about how to address that concern, and how to ensure that when we announce a final position, nothing we propose undermines such a possibility for new farmers.
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend is being most generous in giving way. To clarify, is he saying that if permitted development rights were not applied to national parks, the Government would probably come forward with further proposals to change the way in which national parks operate, such that some of the derelict barns that he has described would be brought into more effective use?
Nick Boles
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question. As he will know, the Government are considering the planning guidance. It has been out for consultation and many hon. Members have made useful contributions, which we will take seriously. We may look at whether we can give a slightly stronger nudge to national park authorities in that guidance about being positive in their view, while nevertheless retaining the right to decide whether something should receive planning permission.
Nick Boles
I will give way to my hon. Friend in what little time I have left.
Dr Wollaston
One point that has not been covered is that some derelict buildings play an important role in sustaining wildlife in national parks. I hope that the Minister will also say whether, if permitted development rights are allowed for such areas, there could be a mechanism whereby exception sites are pulled in. Although I recognise that there will be some second homes, we must do something about affordable housing—that is the housing that is crucially needed in our national parks.
Nick Boles
I am relieved to hear, Mr Speaker, that the cut-off is not after half an hour, but at 10.30 pm. I am therefore happy to take as many interventions as Members want to make.
To address my hon. Friend’s question briefly, she is absolutely right that the critical need, particularly in national parks, but also in many of the most beautiful and highest value areas of the country, is for affordable housing of various kinds. I have visited a couple of excellent community land trust projects, not in her constituency but in other parts of my home county of Devon, where I was born and grew up. It is important that we support great projects such as those and make it easier for them to persuade landowners to provide land for affordable housing development, perhaps in exchange for the right to undertake more profitable development. I am happy to look at anything more that we can do on that with the Housing Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins).
Nick Herbert
If my hon. Friend goes down the route of guidance, may I caution him against using the guidance to give national park authorities a nudge in the direction of saying that buildings should be converted, as he suggested? We should allow national park authorities to exercise their judgment on these matters and allow the Sandford principle to apply. That principle states quite clearly that, in the event of a conflict, conservation trumps economic development. These are often sensitive matters. In my constituency, a beautiful old barn is being considered for development. The national park authority is weighing that up carefully. A push in one direction would not be helpful and could be contrary to the principle on which the park was set up.
Nick Boles
My right hon. Friend is always helpful in raising concerns about unintended consequences, but he is unnecessarily worried about that particular point. I did not say that the guidance should tell national park authorities that they should approve applications; I said that they should view applications in a positive manner. He knows how guidance works. It does not require anybody to do anything; it simply says, “You should take this into account as a material consideration in your decision making.” Nothing in guidance can undermine the much more important established legal duties that are unique to national parks. This is simply a question of balance.
Development might be appropriate for some national park authorities—there are differences between them. Some national park authorities are more open-minded and willing to try out different forms of development than others. All we are saying is that before they immediately say no because they think that the best way to preserve the beauty of their national park is for a particular building to stay exactly as it is, unused by modern agriculture, we would like them to think creatively about whether it could be used in a more positive way. I do not think that that in any way undermines the fundamental principles that national parks must prioritise above all other considerations according to their original, founding duties.
Oliver Colvile
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. It is incredibly important to ensure that homes in national parks also have broadband. In south Devon, one of the biggest small industries is the financial services industry, and we must ensure that it can help with growth. We must also ensure that we have a railway line so that we can get there.
Nick Boles
I am an optimist and I think that such tensions can almost always be resolved positively, but my hon. Friend puts his finger on the potential tension between allowing modern life to take place so that these parks do not become theme parks, while preserving the very beauty that makes them so special in the first place, and makes people want to live and set up businesses there. That tension is real, but I am sure it can be resolved.
Simon Hart
On flexibility, does the Minister agree that there may sometimes be a situation where conservation has to trump economic activity, and that that is restrictive? Something that has a minimal impact on conservation might have a positive impact on economic development, but at the moment national parks are hamstrung when it comes to making a measured judgment on that. It should be more flexible.
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend had made this argument to me before in various settings—including a Westminster Hall debate that was almost equally lively—but I have not yet been persuaded by his argument. What is the point of a national park if conservation is not the prime duty? On the other hand, I do not think that that duty always trumps other arguments. Of course there are other responsibilities, and every national park authority that I have spoken to takes those other responsibilities seriously. It is reasonable, however, that in national parks a greater weight is placed on that fundamental duty to conserve the landscape than is true in the rest of the English countryside.
Nick Boles
I am slightly buffeted about with interventions, but it would be nice to hear from the other side of the House.
Jim Shannon
May I encourage the Minister to look at the example of Northern Ireland? Permitted development is not a carte blanche to go ahead and do whatever we want, and a sustainable rural community must survive as well. He mentioned balance about 10 times in his speech, and I suspect that the balance is Northern Ireland is one he would be glad to see.
Nick Boles
I would be delighted to look closely at that, not least because this gives me the opportunity to tell the hon. Gentleman—whom I long to call an hon. Friend—that I lived in his constituency about 25 years ago on Sketrick island, which is one of the most beautiful settlements in the stunningly beautiful Strangford lough. As a Devon boy, I find myself deeply divided between the beauties of Dartmoor, which I grew up with, and the beauty of Strangford lough, which I enjoyed for but one summer—but what a summer it was. I would be happy to look at those examples.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I would like to build on an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham). The Minister is expressing eloquently the need for balance in this discussion, and it is also important to achieve balance across the different needs and characters of different national parks. In some, buildings are often very isolated—in the peaks, for example—but not so isolated elsewhere. Building and constructing on isolated barns, or whatever else, would be entirely inappropriate in one national park, but might be more appropriate in others where there is less space and geographic expanse to fill.
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend succinctly makes the argument for why it might well be appropriate for national parks to retain the ability to decide on a case-by-case basis whether such development is possible. I hope that I have explained that the intention behind the proposed permitted developed right is to bring forward more housing on land that is already developed, and to make maximum use of the buildings that our ancestors saw fit to build, so that we do not have to put up any more buildings on green fields than is necessary to meet our housing and other needs.
I recognise, however, and the Government recognise, that national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are so called for a reason and have a special status. It is a status we must respect, and it is important that we think hard and listen to the arguments put to us about the appropriateness of this measure in those areas. Although I cannot anticipate the Government’s final position, I reassure you, Mr Speaker, my hon. Friends, and my honorary hon. Friend, that the Government have heard the arguments loud and clear.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Public Interest Disclosure Act
Future governance in Kashmir
Planned closure of the Portland coastguard helicopter base
Westminster Hall
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BackBench Business
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Holiday Pricing
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to holiday companies charging extra in school holidays.
I would like to start by referring to an e-mail I received a few minutes ago from a parent who hopes to take his three children to Turin next February half term, in 2015. According to his e-mail, the British Airways website gives a price of £54 for a single person on Tuesday 10 and Wednesday 11 February 2015. On the Thursday, the price goes up to £112, and on the Friday it is £344. That is for a one-way flight for a single person. My correspondent asks how on earth parents can ever afford to pay such prices. That is what this debate is about, in essence. The fact is that many parents across the country are having great difficulty in being able to afford to go on holiday with their children.
The e-petition that we are debating was initiated some time ago by Donna Thresher, although Paul Cookson has been campaigning to get signatures for it since he found that Center Parcs doubled its prices at half term. Donna has said:
“Firstly we the undersigned are grateful that our voice is to be heard. The news of the debate is welcomed by all of us as we feel this is a positive step towards an outcome that we deem extremely important to the well being of family life. For those of us that work hard, pay our bills and taxes, a family holiday is the only time off we get to spend QUALITY time with our families. The government are struggling to understand why we have ‘Benefits Britain’ and one of the reasons is simple, broken families. Parents need time off, they need to enjoy their children and have time together as a unit. With holidays being priced out to such a degree that makes them unobtainable and means families are not getting this important time together.”
The e-petition was tabled before the changes to the regulations came into force on 1 September 2013. I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for allocating time for this debate. The comments I am about to read were written after the new regulations, which are very relevant, came into force. Donna said:
“The original petition still stands in its own right but we do feel that the change in legislation has impacted the costs even further.
However, there are things to be considered—the petition was raised almost a year ago and the legislation with regard to the change in the discretionary rights of head teachers to allow pupils time of in term time had NOT at the time been made public.”
Donna’s thoughts since the change in legislation are:
“Holiday prices have increased even further. Schools will no longer know when children are being removed for a holiday as parents may decide to not say, this could constitute a safeguarding issue and end up with social service involved! The 10 days discretionary was working, why did it have to be changed? Fines are sought by the school and yet they don’t receive the money; it goes to the council and not back into the schools themselves. Therefore this seems to me to be another stealth tax.”
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend confirm whether the previous rule used to be about 10 days or 10 sessions? I think he will find that a session is actually half a day.
John Hemming
My hon. Friend may be right, but that has been changed anyway.
There is also the issue of the new regulations, which we discussed with the Backbench Business Committee. A group called Parents Want a Say was established following the introduction of the new regulations, and it has a website. A number of e-petitions relate to the issue of school holidays. E-petition 49640 is entitled “Reverse the changes to school term time family holiday rules”.
E-petition 53002 states that it is
“calling on the government to help British families manage the ‘Parent Trap’ of inflated holiday prices in summer by suspending or reducing the rate of Air Passenger Duty (APD) for the annual school summer-holiday period of July and August.”
E-petition 45247 states:
“Relax the strict rules on term time holidays for school children.
Give parents the right to take their child on holiday in term time if the holiday would benefit the child.
Respect the rights of the child and bring term time holiday regulations in line with UNCRC (specifically article 3,4,5 and 31).
Standardise the criteria for term time holiday approval to prevent inconsistencies.”
E-petition 46455 states:
“Family time is so much more essential in the current working world, but so many people cannot afford holidays in school holidays. A break at home is not the same as getting away from it all where there isn't any house work or DIY to get done, instead focus is on family. Its time to stop the holiday companies cashing in on school holidays and let parents have some guilt free family time! Enforce action that caps the percentage increase on holiday prices in school holidays.”
There are also e-petitions 55426, 51533, 42884 and 23709, which I am not going to read out. This debate is a very good example of how effective an e-petition can be in getting an issue of considerable concern to many constituents across the country raised and debated in Parliament. It looks to me like an example of the success of the e-petition system.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I apologise for not being able to stay for the entire debate, but I wanted to support my hon. Friend. I have received a lot of letters on this issue from my constituents in Shrewsbury. They feel strongly that the Government must show innovative thinking to resolve the situation for hard-working families who, on rare occasions, need to pull their children out of school for a holiday.
John Hemming
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. As I talk about specific examples, we will see that different families have different circumstances, and a one-size-fits-all approach is not necessarily the best solution.
It is interesting that the tensions that have arisen beyond the initial problem of high prices during the holidays are the result of the new regulations, passed in statutory instrument 2013 No. 756. For those interested in procedural issues, as I am, I should say that the regulations went through Parliament under a negative resolution—that is, they would pass as long as Parliament did not vote against them. Parliament would have had an opportunity to discuss the regulations had anyone tabled an early-day motion praying against them, but no one did. There was no discussion.
The regulations were laid before Parliament on 4 April 2013. There was no request to debate them on the Floor of the House of Lords either. That House differs from the House of Commons in that it has a Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which looked at the regulations and decided not to comment on them. However, we have heard from our constituents that there are considerable problems across the country. That shows the strength of the e-petitioning process. Something went through Parliament on the nod, but constituents had a mechanism to express concerns. The issue has been raised and now everyone present is here to debate it.
I must disagree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). The Department for Education website states that the regulations were changed from allowing up to 10 school days—not 10 school sessions—per year for holidays to allowing children to leave school only in exceptional circumstances. As I said, I will come to specific examples. Although there was some form of consultation on changes to the regulations, that did not get across to people and Parliament was not aware of constituents’ concerns when the changes were made. However, that has now changed.
How do we deal with the issue? Obviously, many of our constituents face a serious problem; that is evidenced by the number of people in the Chamber. Concerns have been expressed about the extent to which companies can be forced to charge the same price throughout the year. I do not think that that is a practical solution, particularly given that the market includes people visiting this country—we could end up with holiday touts and all sorts of things.
There are two solutions for dealing with demand. First, we could have flexibility in holiday periods: we could stagger holidays. Secondly, we could have more flexibility—moving back towards how things were previously, although not necessarily all the way—and allow people to take their children out of school in term time, in the right circumstances. I think that would be reasonable in some circumstances.
Looking further at how the issue is regulated, we already have Ofcom, Ofwat and Ofgem; I do not think we can have Offonholiday—that would not work. A reduction in air passenger duty has been proposed, but there would be problems with that. First, it would not benefit UK holidaymakers. Paul Cookson, who I referred to earlier, was worried about the doubling of prices at Center Parcs. As Center Parcs is in the UK, a reduction in air passenger duty would not have an effect on people going there. If the APD proposal reached the Treasury, it would go into a nosedive; we would find that it was not a flyer—[Interruption.] Sorry about that. I will give up on the jokes now.
We come to the question of what will happen as far as flexibility for holidays is concerned. I have found an interesting copy of Travel Trade Gazette from 1963, which reports:
“It was in the House of Commons on February 12, 1960, that approval was first given to the setting up of a committee to examine the question of extending the U.K. holiday season.
The subject was introduced by Mr. Robert Mathew, M.P. for Honiton, in a motion which read:
‘That this House, recognising the need to extend and adjust the holiday period so as to relieve congestion at the peak period, asks Her Majesty’s Government to set up a committee to examine this question urgently with special reference to the educational, tourist trade and transport interests concerned, and the problem of summer time, with the power to recommend early action.’ ”
We are now a good few years on; we did not have the early action. That was in 1963. In 1964, the heads of Germany’s regional governments, which are responsible for state education, were called together to stagger the summer holidays in such a way as to prevent all the region’s leisure seekers from leaving for and returning from their holidays at the same time, with the corresponding detrimental effect on traffic and demand for accommodation in tourist areas. They divided the country into five roughly equal population blocks, which were all to have different holiday periods that moved around. It is interesting that Germany managed to do something. In fact, I understand that the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Finland and France also have such a facility.
Interestingly, schedule 14 to the Deregulation Bill, currently being discussed, allows head teachers to decide when holidays are. The general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, Russell Hobby, said recently that the NAHT has been saying for some time that there is an argument for more flexibility over term times, to relieve the pressures that drive up holiday costs. However, it is important for schools to co-ordinate timings across a town or region; parents with children at different schools would not welcome the inconvenience and child care costs of different term dates. That is obviously sensible. We must also think of the teachers; those with children would not like their children’s holidays to be at a different time from theirs.
Staggering holiday dates can definitely be done, but it will need co-ordination; it will not be something to wash our hands of. It may be for the Select Committee on Education to consider, in conjunction with other people, how we might stagger holidays across the country so that we do not end up with everyone trying to go on holiday at the same time and prices rocketing.
That is one question. The more difficult question is when people should be allowed out of school during term time and what exemptions should apply. Again, I will quote from what people have said to me. One person says:
“This coming Tuesday is my uncle’s funeral in Folkestone…Our three children were quite close to him. We enquired of their schools (primary and secondary) whether they would be prepared to grant exceptional circumstance leave for one day only and in both cases they said they felt unable to do so under the new rules.”
There we have a specific example of children being refused permission to go to the funeral of their great-uncle. Personally, I think that is wrong.
Other parents do not have a choice as to when they have holiday. A lady who returned from maternity leave to her post as a staff nurse in a bone marrow transplant unit at a hospital put in an early request for annual leave during the Easter or summer half-term break. Her requests were not granted, as too many other nurses were off during those periods and the unit must remain adequately staffed. In addition, her husband has been unable to secure annual leave during the summer. They have always made their best efforts to book holiday time during school breaks, but the only week that they could secure together this year was in June, when there is no school holiday. That lady spends her time saving lives. She is committed to that, so she does not have flexibility in her holidays, and the new rules say that she cannot go on holiday with her children. I think that is wrong, too.
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise the particular problems faced by members of the armed forces? Some schools have been pragmatic in allowing members of the armed forces, particularly if they are being deployed, to spend a holiday with their children. It is particularly shoddy when they are not given that opportunity, especially now that we have the armed forces covenant.
John Hemming
I thank the hon. Lady for making that excellent point. I would happily have made it myself, but I now no longer need to.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the situation of my constituent Amanda Wooding, who is a child care specialist. She, of course, finds herself particularly in demand during the school holidays, but she has children of her own, so she can never take them on holiday at other times because of her profession.
John Hemming
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. The issue is all about considering individual cases. Perhaps the hardest case is that of the police, who not only often do not have any choice as to when they take holiday, but also can be fired if they are fined. That is a double whammy. Not only is taking holiday difficult; they also face losing their job. That is clearly unfair to those people.
Another constituent of mine says that they have one family holiday a year. Until this year they have been fortunate enough to take it for a week during the school term, always authorised by the school, but they cannot afford to take the same holiday during the school holidays, although their children’s attendance is otherwise excellent. That is my constituent’s point: they ensure that their children’s attendance is excellent and that they maintain their educational standards, do work and so on. Now, from a cost-effectiveness point of view, it is cheaper to pay the fines. It is not very good to have a structure in society that effectively encourages people to break the criminal law because it would cost them thousands of pounds not to.
I have another story from some people from Australia who have difficulty visiting family if there is no flexibility at all. They say:
“What is clear is that this ruling actually favours the rich. Those who can afford it pay the fine for taking their children out—I know of one family who recently took themselves skiing to do this—while those on low incomes who cannot afford the fine but feel they must go will get a criminal record. The ruling is draconian.”
Similarly, I have a constituent with links to Pakistan who has concerns that the ruling is damaging their family links as well. Those examples give us some idea of the exceptions that are now not being treated as exceptions.
On mechanisms for change, we should first look to the Taylor report itself, as that drove the changes. Recommendation 6 was that
“changes are made to the pupil registration regulations to strengthen the rules on term time holidays. While head teachers should continue to have discretion, holidays in term time should be the exception rather than the rule.”
Actually, they are not happening at all now. One obvious question in all this is what pressure Ofsted is placing on head teachers to reduce the numbers. The numbers were that 7.5% of absence in primary schools and 2.5% in secondary schools was related to holidays. Obviously, if head teachers are under pressure to reduce those numbers, there will be an effect.
We must consider the mechanisms for change. One is for the Government to produce guidance saying clearly that going to a great-uncle’s funeral, for instance, is reasonable. Secondly, the Government could introduce a new statutory instrument changing the regulations. The final question is whether a judicial review under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, or using the UN convention on the rights of the child—a point made in one of the other petitions—could have an effect.
There is undoubtedly a problem. The fact that so many constituents have highlighted the issue and so many people have signed online petitions about it demonstrates that. There are numerous solutions, including working with schools to stagger school holidays or changing regulations. We need to do something.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Turner, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I also thank my colleague on the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), for securing it. When the e-petition came to us, we recognised its importance, not only because it reached 100,000 signatures, but because of the number of constituents who talked to us about the issue. His comprehensive speech—I hope I do not repeat any of it—highlighted how this is about individual cases. A big national policy that is supposed to apply to every single case will simply not work. I want to use a couple of examples from my own constituency to highlight how a more sensible policy would look at each individual case—each individual child and each individual parent—and give schools far greater discretion to allow people out of school and for how long.
We all agree that education is crucial and that the more time a child misses from its education, the worse it is for that child. Nobody is arguing for taking children out of school indiscriminately just because it is a little cheaper to go on holiday. We are talking about the people who are least able to afford to go on holiday, who have already got the greatest pressures on them.
A constituent of mine, Tim Farmer from Dronfield, has written to me. He and his partner share child care. One of them starts work at 6 am and the other finishes work at 11 am. They cannot afford to take their children on holiday during term time, and not spending time together means that the family is put under pressure. Heaped on top of that, they work absolutely punishing hours and never get the chance to spend time together as a family. That puts additional pressures on family life, and we are seeing, especially at a time of austerity, more and more families breaking up. We must look at the costs of not doing anything about it.
I have a distressing case in which the school’s response illustrates how a national policy does not really work in individual cases. The case involves a man who is separated from his wife. His seven-year-old daughter goes to a school in the constituency; he lives 120 miles away and visits on alternate weekends. The girl has just been diagnosed with a brain tumour, and they do not know what will happen to the child. He has asked the school whether he can take the girl on holiday for a week. The school has cited Government legislation to say there will be no unauthorised absences. It sounds quite threatening, but the school has no option, because of the rules. The school wrote:
“As from 1st September 2013 any holidays during term time will not be authorised, unless there are exceptional circumstances, for which there are set strict criteria. This is Government policy and parents who take their children on holiday without permission will incur unauthorised absences for their child. These remain on the child’s record and will be monitored for further action by the Education Welfare Service. Parents could be issued with a fixed penalty notice and/or court action.”
That is quite threatening language, but it is national policy. If a child with a brain tumour does not fall under the category of a special case, I do not know what does.
Tim Farmer’s children have got 99% to 100% attendance at school. He wants the best for them, but he also says that going on holiday with the family provides a cultural experience, a broadening of horizon and a stability for the children that helps them. Education is much wider than what people get at school.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
Has a teacher or head teacher approached the hon. Lady on this topic, and, in this particular case, has she had a chance to speak to the teacher at the school, because head teachers do have discretion?
Natascha Engel
Absolutely, and the case is ongoing. I was citing it as an example of using a massive hammer to crack a nut. Everything is with good intentions. We all want the best education for our children. We all know that the less time a child spends at school, the worse its outcomes will be, and there are lots of different reasons for that. There are children from chaotic families and children who truant, but we are talking about looking at an individual child and the family’s circumstances and seeing whether it would be possible, not to have a week a year taken out of school time, but to have a week occasionally to make sure that that family can spend some quality time together. I am so glad that we are having this debate, and I am looking forward to hearing about other individual cases from constituencies, because they will highlight the fact that we do need to revisit the matter.
Obviously, we cannot force holiday companies not to raise their prices during school holiday times, but we do need to have a far more sensible and pragmatic approach. We need to give schools greater discretion to allow families to have holidays together.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I agree with many of the points the hon. Lady is making, but I have a concern about putting the onus on to head teachers without very good guidelines. Head teachers would find it difficult with parent against parent, and there would be inconsistencies across areas and across the country, so I think we need to dig into the criteria and guidelines that are issued.
Natascha Engel
That is an excellent point. I know the hon. Lady has a background in education, and she is absolutely right. All I am asking for is that we allow greater discretion. At the moment, there is not enough discretion, and that is why the issues are being raised with us as constituency MPs.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I think I agree with my hon. Friend, but does she agree with me that the problem is that there are at least three variables? There are those—including teachers—who, by virtue of their employment, would never have the opportunities that others are seeking. There are those—she gave some good examples—whose own employment makes it difficult for them to find space. And of no less importance is the requirement for schools to provide the entire curriculum to all the children, and co-ordinating that would be a problem. The idea of more discretion is good, but it needs to be underpinned by some basic principles about how all the different groups can be catered for.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
Order. Before you continue, can I ask that you face my direction in future?
Natascha Engel
I absolutely agree. Our problem at the moment is that we have one national policy that is supposed to apply to everybody, and it is not working in the case of teachers, police officers, and the armed forces. There are lots of individual professions that will have problems. However, the head teachers that I have met know the parents and their children. We do not want a situation in which it becomes too easy to take children out of school—there would be abuses of that—but in the case of families with the lowest incomes and the greatest pressures on family life, where a lot of the families are breaking up, that is far worse for a child than simply missing a couple of days of its education because it has gone on holiday. We need to look at that a lot more carefully. I agree with the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole that we need to look at the guidelines more carefully. We must not impose so harshly on schools and use such a threatening tone with parents. For people on a low income, the inability to ever go on holiday would be a great shame.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. As an MP who represents a constituency that relies on the tourism industry, I presume you will find this an interesting and topical debate. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) for securing this debate, which has managed to attract more than 200,000 signatures on petitions. I posted about this on Facebook and had 47 separate comments and suggestions from residents, with more than 3,000 views in just 72 hours. A lot of important things that we do in Parliament do not attract quite as much interest. That shows the strength of feeling in parents throughout the country on a real, live issue.
In my mind, this matter is split into three sections. First, it is about the holiday industry, which is why the Minister was selected to respond to the debate. Some have expressed concern about such a significant increase in costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley gave good examples of people going on holidays during school holidays and during term time. However, some parents said that they felt that was a bit of a red herring: it probably reflects supply and demand, because if a firm cannot sell the more expensive holidays, it would be forced to drop those prices. For example, Center Parcs relies on something like a 97% occupancy rate to be a viable business. Prices will reflect—
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
As a representative for Bournemouth East, my default position is to support the tourism industry. Like many colleagues, I have received letters on this subject from people who are concerned about the price of holidays. Does my hon. Friend agree with the point made by my hon. Friend for Birmingham, Yardley about co-ordination across the country? Is it really necessary for Dorset to have the same holiday timings as Yorkshire or Kent? Could we not stagger these a little bit, so that supply and demand is spread over a longer period?
Justin Tomlinson
Like Bournemouth, which is a fantastic place to go on holiday, my hon. Friend’s intervention was fantastic. I am coming to that point in a bit. I have had many enjoyable holidays in Bournemouth.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) for giving way and to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for his comment. We support greater flexibility for different authorities, but can we ensure that Derbyshire gets the warmest months?
Justin Tomlinson
Derbyshire is also a fantastic place to go on holiday. Let us champion every constituency. I think that we are on safe ground, with cross-party support, when championing the UK tourism industry.
We need to be 100% sure that there are not some unscrupulous operators, but predominantly we need to focus on the two other areas of discretion and flexibility. On discretion, there is already confusion among a lot of parents. A lot of parents have contacted me to say, “We have triggered fines. We feel that our decision to take our children out of school was justified, but the school came back and said, ‘Under the new rules, there is absolutely no discretion; you will be fined’.” As a Government representative, I have almost felt obliged to apologise on behalf of the Government.
At one school that has made the new rules clear, the chair of governors said, “No. Actually, there is discretion. We, through the pastoral team, will look at those parents whose children have excellent attendance records and are achieving well in school and we will look at why they might be taken out of school, for a funeral, say, compared to a holiday without educational benefits, and it would be weighed up.” Clearly, there is confusion and that needs to be resolved.
There is the assumption that there is pressure from Ofsted because it looks at attendance records when rating a school. If a school decides to say that, because of cost and work pressures, it will allow a good level of discretion, its attendance records do not look good. That also needs to be considered, because that would be a disincentive for a school to apply common-sense discretion.
I think that all hon. Members would agree that, perhaps, discretion should apply where children are doing well and where parents work during school holidays. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is a champion for the armed forces, highlights one career, but I am sure that there many others, in all our constituencies, where parents can take their children on holiday only during school time. We have all noticed the cost of peak holidays.
There are some challenges. I have been contacted by teachers who say that they do not like being in the firing line and having discretion, because if they feel that the child should not be given time off they are the ones who are blamed. Sometimes there are reasons why that should not be so. I have also been told that, in the past, when there was discretion about 10 days or 10 sessions, some parents felt that it was an automatic right to have that every year, even if the child was struggling. There was never a case of a parent saying, “You’re absolutely right. I’ll now withdraw that request.” It would create heated discussion. If we are to consider discretions, clear guidelines, which were suggested earlier, are an absolute must.
We must also consider teachers, because although discretion can help pupils and parents, the teachers would not have discretion to take time off during terms. That is not necessarily a complete, one-size-fits-all solution.
I am a big fan of flexibility in this regard. One big suggestion is flexible term times. About a year ago I was contacted by a resident, Nicki Mitchell, on this issue. I suggested flexible term times and was asked, “What happens if you have a child in a primary school and another at a secondary school, and they have different term times? That will make it even harder.” A number of residents have contacted me and said that such flexibility exists in Europe and that it is done by county or region. We might decide that the south-east goes a couple of weeks earlier and the south-west goes a couple of weeks later. However, in Europe it is done in rotation, so it is not always the south-west or south-east first. Not only would that help parents and children, but it would probably help the tourism industry, because almost regardless of what it charges it can fill up at peak time, but the rest of year it faces a real challenge. Spreading that across the year would be helpful.
If we cannot manage flexible term times, another suggestion is extending the school year by two weeks and allowing everybody automatically two weeks’ worth of discretion throughout the year. That would probably be incredibly unpopular with teachers, who would then face an extra two weeks, but I thought that I would mention it.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Once a child has been away on holiday for two weeks, would there not be a lot of catching up to do when they came back? Children would be trying to catch up at different times.
Justin Tomlinson
That applies to general discretion. There is a plus and a negative with any suggestion, which is why my personal choice would be rotational, flexible term times, because that would help children, parents and teachers, and the tourism industry. To me that is a win-win, across the board. Long gone are the days when we all needed to be available for harvest time.
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, which has caught the public’s imagination. It is a serious issue. I do not think that we will necessarily get all the solutions today. I think that the key to this—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley mentioned it—is that the Education Committee should now pick up the baton after this debate, taking on board the speeches and comments that we have made, and we will happily forward all suggestions and comments from constituents who have contacted us. This can be looked at. The Government could, by looking at this proactively, innovatively and constructively, make a real difference to people’s lives.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
Order. I call Damian Green. I am sorry: I meant Damian Hinds.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the elevation implicit in your introduction, Mr Turner. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. As it was said earlier, you represent the Isle of Wight, which is one of the important tourist destinations in this country.
This debate has already covered a number of important subjects, including the importance of family life and family time, the value of an education, which people do without by missing part of education, the joy and the benefits of discovery through travel, and the health of the travel industry. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr Turner, if I restrict my remarks mostly to the topic of the e-petition, which is on whether to stop holiday companies charging extra in the school holidays.
In the current tough times, of course we are focused in this Parliament on affordability of everything for families and being able to spend time together away from home is one aspect of that. In the words of the petition:
“Family time is so much more essential in the current working world, but so many people cannot afford holidays in school holidays”
and a
“break at home is not the same as getting away from it all where…focus is on family”.
Who could disagree with that?
I understand why people would say, “If holiday companies can make money charging price x in the winter, surely they must be able to make profit by charging the same price in the summer. By charging a higher price, they must be making huge profits on the backs of other people.” That is not correct. If the same is charged in summer as in winter for a popular sun-based tourist destination, those companies would be out of business and nobody would be going on those holidays. It is also worth saying that what counts as a peak period in the travel business is partly but not entirely determined by when school holidays are. Weather also plays a big part, and so does the timing of public holidays such as Easter, Christmas and, in this country, bank holidays.
A little Google research this morning revealed that for holidays on which presumably no children are involved, and therefore school holidays are not involved, there is also a big difference in price. The price for a Thomas Cook couple’s retreat in Negril, Jamaica goes up by 31% between June and August. As you will recall from when we were there together recently, Mr Turner, the price for an “Ibiza Rocks” clubbing holiday also rises by 31% between June and August. The differences in those prices are clearly not driven by the timing of school holidays.
I have a confession: I come here today as a sinner. Before coming to Parliament I spent about a decade in the travel trade. I am afraid that I was mostly involved in pricing and what the travel trade calls “revenue management.” I do not want to go into the technical detail, but revenue management is basically the discipline of deciding what prices to offer, to whom, when and under what conditions.
Damian Hinds
Yes, it is my fault. I worked mostly in the hotel business, but the same principle applies to airlines and most of the travel business’s wide range of products—basically anything with high fixed-cost assets, a perishable product and fixed or semi-fixed capacity. Hotels are also suppliers to holiday companies. Package operators buy in capacity from airlines, hotels, bus companies and so on. It is also worth bearing in mind that there is an international market, especially in foreign travel. Packagers are to some extent price takers. No one in this country decides the market rate of a hotel room in Spain in the high season. Even if we believed that British companies set the prices for holidays, no one would suggest that Spanish hoteliers are within the control of Her Majesty’s Government. Resort-based travel is international in nature. People have already mentioned the timing of German and French holidays, which are already factored into the price. If people from different countries are going to a resort, the demand is an amalgam of all the incoming traffic.
I come here as a sinner, but I have not come here to confess. I do not anticipate a popularity boost from my appearance in Westminster Hall this afternoon, but the simple fact is that to a large extent we are talking about the laws of economics. There is no single year-round market clearing price in holiday resorts.
Annette Brooke
I want to draw on the hon. Gentleman’s expertise. I accept that there is supply and demand and that, if we attempt to interfere too much, there will be touting and so on, but does his analysis include the reasons for the steep rises on particular days, which seem to coincide with school holidays?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is correct that the rises coincide with school holidays. To some extent, the existence of those holidays creates those spikes, but the holidays themselves coincide with the high season. As I outlined earlier, the prices for holidays marketed to couples, older people, singles, groups and clubbers typically go up in late July and August because that is the most popular time of the year, particularly to visit European, sun-based resort destinations.
This debate is no place to start deconstructing the profit and loss accounts of holiday companies, but contribution to profit is a key concept. I will talk about hotels, but the same logic applies to airlines and other travel products. The direct marginal cost of someone staying in a hotel room is rather low. Globally, the figure is somewhere between $15 and $20. That is the cost of laundering towels and sheets, issuing soap and providing heat, light and power, and so on. On one level, a hotel will make a profit if it charges anything over $20. The problem is that there are other, fixed costs. For an airline or hotel, the biggest fixed cost is the building or aircraft—loan repayments do not go up and down. Taken together, the cost per night goes up from $20 to, say, $100, which is a big difference. In the off-season, a hotel room might be sold for $80, $70, $60 or $50 a night. In other words, a hotel might deliberately make a loss. Why would a hotel do that? It does it because as long as it charges more than $20 a night, which is the direct marginal cost, it is contributing to profit. If a hotel tried to charge the $100 profitable rate, it would not sell the room.
Dr Julian Lewis
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s argument that the rich seasons help airlines and the tourist industry to function during the off-seasons. What does he think would happen if some flexibility were introduced so that schools in different areas took their school holidays at different times? Would he anticipate prices remaining low during those times, or would he anticipate the travel industry increasing prices to reflect such an expansion of the season?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The short answer is that such a measure would be welcomed by the travel business because it would extend the season, which would be good for capacity utilisation. There would be an effect, but the effect would not be nearly as big as many people anticipate. The season might be extended by a week or two, but those would still be shoulder periods. They would not be peak periods, so there would be a difference, but the difference would not be huge.
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point on the responsibility of the tourism industry as a whole to ensure that it sets its prices accordingly, but I recall that during the Olympics there was a concern that many hoteliers in London increased their prices too much, which put people off. Does he have any thoughts on whether that should be rationalised for one-off events such as the Olympics? I recall wanting to stay in Manchester during the party conference, but as soon as hoteliers found out that the party conference might be held in the city, the prices suddenly shot up.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is correct in identifying price gouging as a problem. From a regulatory perspective, most countries have laws against price gouging, but brand owners and companies have an interest in not doing such things. Even worse than the Olympics, price gouging can occur when there has been a natural disaster. People absolutely have to stay in a hotel, so they are ripped off. That is a bad thing, which is why rack rates exist. Rack rates appear on the back of a hotel door, and it is the maximum amount that may be charged in law. Most European countries, the United States and most advanced economies have that system in hotels, but price gouging remains a problem.
In summary, leisure travel companies have to make more money in peak periods to cover the marginal cost losses incurred during the off-season. The definition of a peak period is when most people want to travel, which is partly, but not wholly, determined by the timing of school holidays. I am interested to hear from the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), but it is inconceivable that a British Government of any political persuasion would impose price controls on the British-based travel business. If such price controls were imposed, firms would go out of business—plenty of holiday companies go out of business anyway because margins can be thin across the year—and capacity in foreign resorts would not be made available to British tourists. Instead, capacity would be sold to people from other countries, which would have the disastrous consequence of more German towels on loungers, and we can all unite around wanting to avoid that.
What are the alternatives? I have spoken for too long, but I want briefly to address the debate on taking children out of school outside school holidays. I recognise the argument that times are tough and that people are struggling to go on holiday so want to take their kids out of school. One thing that has not yet come up in the debate is that education in this country is free, but that does not mean that education has no cost. The average cost of educating a child is some £4,500 a year, which covers 190 school days or 38 weeks. By my basic maths that works out at about £120-worth of value per child per week. If someone takes both their children out of school for a fortnight to go on holiday, £480-worth of value is forgone in the education of those children. That value cannot be transferred to the education of another child; it is value forgone for ever. The salary of the teacher and all the other things that go into running the school remain and the children miss out.
Children fall behind if they miss part of their education. In the context of a school term, even a week or two weeks is a reasonably big chunk of time. Multiplied over a lifetime, a child taking a fortnight out from school every year from year R to year 13 would be off for 28 weeks, which is three quarters of an academic year. To put that in physical terms, it is the equivalent of saying to that child, “You will do your GCSEs at the beginning of year 11 rather than at the end.”
What are the options? One thing that nobody has mentioned is counter-cyclical travel. If people go to places in the summer that have most of their demand in winter or in business periods, they can get quite a good deal. We have those places—in particular, business-focused destinations—in this country. Travelodge, for example, has hotels in many places and families can find lots of fabulous things to visit within 40 minutes of any of them.
Damian Hinds
Yes, indeed. The big thing we are talking about is varying holidays, which is intrinsically attractive, but we will never be able to move them that far, because August is August—the warmest time of year in Europe—and Christmas is Christmas. There might be a little flexibility on whether the Easter holiday takes places at Easter, but a teacher will not want the first half of term to represent 40% and the second half to be 60%, because that has a number of implications for education. Varying could be done to some extent, but my recommendation is not to do it over big areas. Some of the other advantages of staggered holidays, such as changes to road capacity usage and train capacity usage, would be lost if everyone in a massive area had the same holiday. Varying could be done at a sub-regional level.
I am not sure that holidays need a big national plan, because schools increasingly have the freedom and ability to vary them under the Government’s reforms. There is nothing to stop schools getting together—there is, for example, the education improvement partnership in my area—and saying, “We are going to do it slightly differently to give parents in our area a bit more room.” That will not, however, solve the whole problem or make holidays in August cost the same as holidays in April. There is a limited amount of movement and, at the end of the day, we just cannot change when the sun shines.
Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on securing this debate, but I also congratulate my generous hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), because she chairs the Committee that gave him this debate, which is on a serious problem.
I enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), which was sensible and humorous, as well as logical and grounded, and that is the approach we should take. There is a problem, but two years ago we would not have debated it, because other problems were forcing their way to this place. What on earth has happened? The person in this room who I feel most sorry for is the poor Minister from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It has been seen as a BIS problem, but it is not; we have been forced here by a problem caused by the great Department for Education. If anyone should be explaining why we are going over all these problems, it is a Minister for Education.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley on the Select Committee point. This matter does not need or deserve a Select Committee inquiry. The Secretary of State for Education should just repeal the regulations that he slipped through when nobody was looking. They have genuinely caused so much pain across the country. I can see that some people are unhappy, so I accept the petition, but I do not accept the remedy. I hope the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley will forgive me for saying this, but it brings back memories of when Shirley Williams—she is Lady Williams now—was the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. Are we actually suggesting that we could have a cap?
The Guardian took a snapshot of the seasonal price differences. This is free advertising for these institutions, but four nights in lodge accommodation at Center Parcs Woburn Forest, Bedfordshire, has a 51% increase between summer term time and the summer holiday. Disneyland Paris has a 7% increase. It is not about foreign flights and foreign people; it is about business and supply and demand. If we try to regulate prices, we will land ourselves in trouble. A King once said, “Bugger Bognor!” I do not know if I will get into trouble for saying that, but if the King can say it, I think I can say it. Four nights at the Butlin’s resort in Bognor Regis have a 99% increase in cost between the week before schools go off and the week after.
Andy Sawford
I agree that the regulations that the Government created to place fines on parents have exacerbated the problem, but does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government have effectively strengthened the monopoly in the holiday period by making it increasingly difficult for parents to have any kind of flexibility? Often, we are not talking about parents taking their child out of school for two weeks year in, year out, but children missing a couple of days or even an afternoon to get a slightly cheaper flight. That flexibility has been lost.
Mr Mudie
I will catch the hon. Lady’s eye in a moment, if I may. My wife is a head teacher and has been a teacher since I married her. Every family holiday that we have taken has been at the most expensive time. We were both salaried, so we could afford it, but I understand what happens to families on the breadline or families struggling with their mortgage or short-term unemployment. If they have children and want to take a holiday—the figures show that it does not matter whether it is abroad or in this country—they will face inflated prices in the summer holiday.
We are talking about doing things for schools and how we would work out whether to give kids a week off and whether we would need regulations, but I do not know what regulations we would need to regulate prices. The Labour Government tried that in the 1960s and failed miserably. There are offshoots to the issue, because with railways, we have the choice of travelling at peak times or off-peak. The difference in prices is clear. If someone is booking a hotel in London, a Tuesday will have a different price from a weekend. That is business and supply and demand.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank both hon. Gentlemen for letting me intervene. We are all here because we know that the public are aggrieved by this issue and we want to do something to alleviate that. On the drive to attack the Department for Education, I can point to schools that have no problem exercising discretion under the regulations for members of the armed forces and all sorts of other exceptional cases. The real problem is those who do not have an exceptional case, but might have relatives living in a particular country. They might not have the choice that others have over their holiday destination. That is an issue for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. In particular, it should look at the costs of flights and whether the mark-up is reasonable.
Mr Mudie
I would not challenge the last part, but I still think that we would leave the regulators with a difficult job unless there was a specific factor—the Olympics were mentioned. We would have some difficulty. As has been suggested, we must take the issue in the round.
It is easy to criticise the people running the business, but they have to make a profit to stay afloat. If they are running below capacity in the other 46 weeks of the year, they have to even things out when they hit capacity, just to stay in business. Therefore I see some genuine difficulty in doing that.
I would like to come on to the Department for Education, because that is where I think the problem lies. I thank and congratulate the people who started the e-petition. Interestingly, the individual who is famous for starting the e-petition was not complaining about foreign holidays, but Center Parcs, in this country.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to flag with him another sort of case that has been raised by a parent in my constituency who has an autistic child. They struggle to go on holiday abroad when it is busy and when there are lots of other kids, so they are in a specific position. I am not sure whether that would be deemed to be exceptional, but that example makes the case that there needs to be more flexibility in the education system, as he has said.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are to be proper in our analysis, while we must think of the cost that is lost from the amount being paid for a child’s education, we must also think of the opportunity cost of that child’s time with their parents?
Mr Mudie
I will answer my hon. Friend when I come on to the DFE. I was thanking the people who have signed the petition, because they have performed a great feat in putting the matter in the public consciousness and the political arena. However, we would be making a grave mistake if we chased after the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. From the answer it gave to the e-petition, I am sure that the Department would not bother if we chased after it, because its answer is quite dusty, but I have some sympathy for it, as the people who should be answering are in the DFE.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am slightly conflicted over the whole issue. The hon. Gentleman made the point about people needing to save money. A constituent of mine, Joy Drake, took her children on a once-in-a-lifetime holiday and saved £1,000 on the air fares. Does he not agree that, if the issue is left to individual head teachers and schools, they will be put in an invidious position in deciding which families get to save on the air fares and which families do not? Therefore, should we not look at something that enables the general discretion to be applied—other than, of course, bereavements and similar things—as to when the holiday is taken by everyone, rather than just flexibility on an individual case by an individual head teacher?
[Mrs Annette Brooke in the Chair]
Mr Mudie
That is an important point.
One of the things that has come from this e-petition is a request from the travel and tourism industries to get together with the Government and local authorities to see if they can work something out to alleviate the problem. The option of regional staggering has been mentioned on more than a couple of occasions. That is one thing that the industry has suggested it wishes to talk about. It has asked for talks, and I look to BIS for an acceptance of that invitation and to get the industry around the table as soon as possible to start talks. I say that not because a quick solution would be forthcoming, but because it will take such a time to get a solution that the sooner they start, the better.
[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]
Let me return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). In this place, roles are reversed at a bewildering speed. If I was standing here giving the education policy of a future Labour Government, I would be told, “You don’t trust the professionals. Leave it to the doctors and teachers”. When the solution—this is coming from a Labour MP—is about trusting head teachers, suddenly that is not enough.
I have discussed this matter—more than anything else this past week—with my wife, who is a head teacher, and all I get is common sense. None of us would be prepared to stand here and say this, particularly as two weeks ago, my wife had Ofsted in at 24 hours’ notice, but head teachers have great discretion, great judgment— on the whole—and great empathy. They have great relations with parents and know them. They can look at the attendance records and do all the things that have been suggested as a matter of common sense and as part of being a good head running a good school. I would be content to leave it at that.
I would like hon. Members to say if they had a problem with kids’ attendance when families could take an in-term holiday. Where were the letters about that? Where were the public complaints? They were not there—it was not a problem. What did the Secretary of State for Education do? I do not want to make the issue political; I have been gently asking him, for once in his life, just to act with a bit of humility and take the measure off the table, and I do not want to make it easy for him not to do it by being political. That is all he needs to do, because the situation was okay.
Due to the fuss that has gone on and the hurt that has happened, why should the Government not just take the measure off the table? The Secretary of State has caused it, so he has in his hands a remedy. If he wants change, he should get together with all the parties. Even the travel trade is saying that it has to lay people off because the measure is affecting its business.
What have the Government done? They have put through the measure without any real consultation. The first bad thing the Secretary of State did was to push through the measure to operate from last September, but people had already made their arrangements for holidays. They had taken the advice of the travel trade and got in quick, seeking the cheapest bookings. Suddenly, it was illegal to do so. There was no consultation. The measure was peremptorily introduced, smuggled through the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The second bad thing is that the Secretary of State will fine the parents £60 if they do it, and it could be £120 if they are late in paying.
Mr Mudie
I see you nodding, Mr Turner. It could get worse than that, because both parents could be fined, so the total fine could be £240.
For some of the parents of children in my wife’s school £60 or £120 is more than they have to keep their family fed, clothed and housed. If you think that that is bad, Mr Turner, the Secretary of State has made the action a criminal offence. Not only will parents get fined for taking the chance to bond with their kids on a beach somewhere, they can get a criminal record because of it. It is not just a case of what happens with picking chewing gum up off the floor, and neighbourhood wardens giving people a £60 fine: there is a criminal record. There is no easy solution. We need the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to get talks going, but the measure should also be withdrawn.
What is there to worry about in this? Ofsted inspectors can go into schools—the professionals, no matter how good they are, are frightened stiff of Ofsted—and see all the records. They can go through every one and look at whether the parents of a child with an exemplary attendance record will be fined because, to go away together, they must take the time during term. Ofsted has attendance and performance figures. All the necessary machinery is available to enable a responsible head to take the decisions in the full knowledge of what happens in the school and, most importantly, to be answerable to Ofsted for which youngsters have been given permission. I hope that BIS will get talks going, and that the Secretary of State for Education will withdraw the statutory instrument.
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)
I thank my constituency next-door neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for today’s debate, which is important for parents throughout the UK.
There is no dispute in any corner of the House about the importance of education. It is a long time since I was at school, but I do not recall my parents ever taking me out of school, and I never took my children out of school. We were fortunate enough to scrape together enough money to take them on holiday. It was generally just for a week, but we had that benefit. Taking children out of school should be avoided, but there are circumstances in which it is warranted, and many hon. Members have mentioned those that might arise.
The sinner—my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—talked about holiday companies’ pricing. Companies set the prices that the market will stand. We may disapprove of their charges, and there are great disparities between the amounts by which companies hike up their prices in school holidays, but we cannot order them to restrict their charges. Those are matters to do with competition rules. However, restricting the number of children who can go on holiday outside normal times leads to a rise in demand in the school holidays, and that is an excuse for companies to hike the prices even further, which is regrettable.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify something. In September 2013, the ruling was that head teachers could grant leave only in exceptional circumstances. Various hon. Members have spoken about what would constitute exceptional circumstances, and whether the definition has been laid down. Will my hon. Friend explain what is meant by the term? The statutory instrument was based on a review carried out by Mr Charlie Taylor. Will my hon. Friend confirm that parents and businesses were not consulted in advance?
I will not repeat all the instances that have been given of suitable circumstances for holidays during term, but seasonal workers are one relevant group. Not many people must be available for the harvest but nevertheless there are all kinds of seasonal workers in the economy. We heard about the armed forces, children with disabilities, and businesses. That is a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, because businesses employ parents. If a business employs many parents, can they all be away on holiday at the same time? That is a problem in my own constituency office.
Andy Sawford
The hon. Lady makes an important point about consultation, and I should be interested to hear whether there was any. Can she add to her list the situation in which parents have family overseas? Constituents have explained to me that it is important to see their family who are abroad, and that it is difficult when there is no flexibility about it, particularly when they are on the other side of the world.
Lorely Burt
I should be delighted to do that. There is a large element of the Asian diaspora based in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley.
Maintained school and academy heads could previously authorise 10 days’ leave, but there is no jurisdiction over the private school sector. Academies normally work for 190 days a year, and private sector schools work, on average, 165 days. There is a measure of irony about that. The children with the wealthiest parents get most choice about when they can go on holiday.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I hope to mention the issue of the 10 days in my speech, but the hon. Lady will recognise that the regulation makes allowance for “special” as opposed to “exceptional” circumstances, as set out in the previous regulations. What does she consider “special” circumstances?
Lorely Burt
What is “special” and what is “exceptional” is a semantic point. I remind the House of what the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) said about allowing head teachers to use their common sense about the family circumstances of each child in their care. They should have more autonomy. It seems slightly ironic to me that, while the coalition Government try to repatriate to schools powers over the curriculum, management and control, we are in the present case removing discretion from them. That does not seem right.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that there is discretion for head teachers to define what counts as special? Several of my constituents who contacted me about the debate said that they wanted to take their children out in circumstances that would be educational for them—to see other cultures and go to places that could help to inform their education. Does she accept that special circumstances might include those cases, and that it should be at the discretion of head teachers to make that interpretation under the regulations?
Lorely Burt
I do, indeed, and I do not think that anyone is better qualified than the head teacher to make those decisions. It is clear from hon. Members’ comments that some head teachers are cowed by the definition of exceptional circumstances. Guidance from the Minister on that would help them.
On the statistical evidence, the measures in question are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Before the rules changed, authorised family holidays accounted for 7.5% of all absences in primary schools, which works out at 0.4% of all sessions missed. This has been mentioned before, but the figure goes down to 2.5% when a child goes to secondary school, because parents recognise the additional importance of their children’s education as they progress—that translates into 0.1% of all sessions missed. Are those therefore the families whom we should be penalising?
Absence for family holidays is lower among those who are the parents of persistently absent pupils. That is another thought—the family holiday parents are not the same as the irresponsible parents who allow their children not to attend school. We need to have some sense of proportion.
In conclusion, will my hon. Friend the Minister provide some kind of definition of “exceptional”? Can more precise, balanced and sensible advice be given to guide head teachers in their decision making? Finally, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Leeds East that heads know their pupils and how to exercise common sense, so can we ensure that the guidance given to head teachers reflects the sensible responsibility that we give them in so many other areas of running school life?
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate. I had not planned to do so at 4.30 pm, but have been motivated by some of the speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who was right to take up the debate, which is important, as recognised by so many parents signing the e-petition. It deserves time in Parliament.
With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), in the closing paragraph of her speech she said that she wanted head teachers to have discretion, but she also wanted guidance from the Department on what constitutes “exceptional”. That is part of the issue, although a little bit of history might explain some of the situation.
The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) is still in his place, and he might be aware that section 23 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 introduced the power for education authorities to issue penalty charge notices in cases of unauthorised absence. To avoid confusion, I was mistaken in what I said earlier about 10 days, because the power is automatically triggered when there are 10 sessions—in effect, five days—of unauthorised absence. That is what triggers the penalty charge notice. That was the case before the more recent statutory instrument was introduced last year.
That takes us back to the idea of what is “special” and what is “exceptional”. The 2006 regulations refer to 10 days of leave—up to 10 days—to be granted by the head teachers in their consideration of what constitutes “special circumstances”. The 2013 regulations removed all the references to when people could be away, saying that the head teacher is the person who can grant leave of absence in “exceptional circumstances”. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull, the difference between “special” and “exceptional” is largely one of semantics. I am not sure that it is right for the Department for Education to define one word or the other, but as has been said consistently, it is appropriate for the head teacher to define whether people may take their child out of school.
Andy Sawford
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Notwithstanding the principle, part of the problem with making the change through a statutory instrument is that there was not the debate that there would have been otherwise—for example, if there was primary legislation with a proper consultation, or even informal debate in the Chamber—on the meaning of the terms. That would have been critical for head teachers and Members in understanding the statutory instrument and its effect.
Dr Coffey
I do not profess to be an expert on parliamentary procedure or on why certain bits of legislation are introduced under the negative or the affirmative resolution procedures. That tends to be defined in the original Act—in this case, I do not know who was responsible for the very original Act and whether it was 1944 or 2006. The original Act is when the process for the introduction of future secondary legislation is decided, but the hon. Gentleman is aware, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley pointed out, that any Member of the House or of the other place may trigger a stay on any regulation on negative resolution by signing an early-day motion. That is a mechanism available to us all. I recognise that MPs therefore have to be even more on the ball about checking what statutory instruments are up for affirmative or negative resolution. That information, however, is made available to every Member of the House in the vote bundle.
On “exceptional” or “special”, I do not have children, so I do not pretend that I have to face the issue. I have, however, had six parents contacting me, four of whom cited cost. In one of those situations, incidentally, teachers had given activities for the children to do while away from school. Another case involved getting time for the children with the other parent. The sixth person who contacted me did so about parental choice: it is for parents to decide when their children go on holidays, not schools, because teachers could make up the time, with the children given special projects. I am not sure that that is necessarily acceptable behaviour. I fully understand the issue about cost, but I have no idea why “special” versus “exceptional” makes a difference for the head teacher in assessing such a decision.
In my time, I have been involved in children’s education as a school governor in two different schools. I will not say which school, because it would be unfair on the head teacher, but in one we discussed the issue in lengthy detail. Parents had almost come to see it as a right to request the time off, and the head teacher would be given a hard time by the parents unless up to 10 days of leave were given. We felt that that was wrong, because it put pressure on the head teacher, as well as on the classroom teacher, who had to cope with the child missing 10 days of schooling.
There is no doubt of the strong link between a school’s attendance records and attainment at the school. That cannot, of course, be proved for every single child, but it is fair to say that, in the schools in my constituency where attendance rates are significantly below the average, I see a significant difference in the attainment of the children. We need to stand up for that consistently: it is not necessarily simply about the individual child—although that child’s education is important—but about all the children in the classes. We need to remember that.
I had not planned to speak and I do not wish to extend the debate unduly, but the regulations introduced last year still leave the head teacher with appropriate discretion. In cases of children with military parents, or those whose parents wish them to attend a funeral, the situation remains the same. There is no automatic right for parents to remove a child in such a case, unless they wish to go down the unauthorised absence route, but by changing the focus and putting in regulation that circumstances must be exceptional, the right expectations are set for parents. It is not therefore a right to take a child out of school for up to 10 days of holiday, as referred to in regulation. What is allowed is exactly what is said: if there is no other opportunity for a particular situation to happen, head teachers may use their discretion. Frankly, if MPs hear of cases in which that is not being applied, we should take them up on behalf of the parent.
John Hemming
Does my hon. Friend agree, as she probably does, that a funeral would be a valid use of exceptional circumstances? Perhaps we should be concerned about Ofsted possibly putting pressure on head teachers to reduce the numbers to such a low level that they cannot even take into account exceptional circumstances.
[Dr William McCrea in the Chair]
Dr Coffey
I am not aware that Ofsted is applying that particular pressure. I agree on one aspect, however. I would be surprised and disappointed were a head teacher to refuse a request in the case of a funeral. As a slight aside, however, I was disappointed when a Whip initially refused me permission to be away to attend a funeral—when I made my representation directly, he changed his mind.
We need consistently to support our teachers, who want to give children the best education possible. We should remove unnecessary pressures on head teachers. I welcome any talks there might be on seasonal pricing, but I encourage us to stand firm and ensure that we put education first.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. You have only just joined us; I assure you that you have missed an excellent debate. I will attempt to do some sort of justice to it, in my own modest way, but you might chose to read Members’ words for yourself later.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on bringing the issue for debate and on the way in which he presented it. The strength of opinion that has been articulated in the debate, the size of the petition and the testimony we have heard from hon. Members clearly show how important the matter is and how right he was.
A couple of hon. Members have reflected on the fact that the Minister is from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and I am responding as a shadow BIS Minister. The initial petition looked very much at the business aspect of the matter, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley was right to say that the whole aspect of the debate has changed since the initial petition first went on to the e-petition system. That was reflected in the debate, which did not dwell much on the business aspect but focused much more on educational policy. That perhaps leaves me at a slight disadvantage.
The issue is of great concern for my constituents, many of whom have taken the opportunity to raise it with me at my weekly surgeries, by e-mail and at the school gate. I did a summer survey in which I raised questions about the changes, which demonstrated powerfully to me how strongly people feel about the matter. We all know how desperately difficult it is to get that balance between the fact that we want our children to be in school at all the right times and the huge increase in the cost of holidays during the school breaks. It was therefore no surprise to me that 150,000 people across the country took action by signing the online petition and demanding that MPs discuss the issue. That is why we have had so many valuable contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I will touch on those in a moment.
A situation has been created in which many families who have not previously faced the dilemma of how to afford an annual summer holiday now find themselves financially squeezed and wondering how to do so. All of us know how important holidays together can be for a family. We are an incredibly time-poor nation, and, often, many people are stretched. We struggle to have time with our families given the huge number of pressures on us, so family holidays are incredibly important. It is tremendously difficult for people when they feel that their opportunity to go on those holidays has been removed. We all recognise how important the issue is.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley was right to say that this is another demonstration of how powerful e-petitions can be. It has shown how issues that we do not immediately see as significant can have their significance powerfully demonstrated to us by our constituents. The response of people to the e-petition demonstrated the importance of this issue.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of staggering holidays, something to which many hon. Members referred. That is an important part of the whole equation. Colleagues in the Department for Education have been looking at that issue and exploring how greater flexibility can be given to schools. The point was made powerfully that we do not want a parent such as myself, with one child in secondary school and one in primary school, to find that their children’s schools have holidays at different times. Perhaps we can try to stretch out the holiday season on a more systematic basis, recognising that although we are not blessed with sunshine all year round in this country, as some areas are, we could none the less stagger holidays to take a bit of pressure off.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that this issue has been debated in this place since the mid-1960s. It is interesting to question why people feel so strongly about it now. The broader pinch that people are feeling at the moment and how the holiday market has changed in recent years, as well as the recent changes to Government education policy, are perhaps some reasons why what has been to an extent a hoary old chestnut for 40-odd years is now being raised powerfully.
The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) suggested that discretion does exist—a point repeated a moment ago—and the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) raised the important question of what constitutes exceptional circumstances. We heard examples of circumstances that have not been considered exceptional. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) spoke about a child with autism whose parents might have specific reasons for not wanting to be on holiday when resorts are most crowded, and asked whether such a case would be considered exceptional.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) highlighted the case of someone whose child had a brain tumour; that was not considered by the head teacher to be an exceptional circumstance. The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) highlighted the case of someone who was exceptionally busy during school holidays because of the kind of business they ran, but their circumstances were not considered exceptional.
It is clear that there has been a change of policy. The Government have communicated that quite deliberately, and it is their right to do so. However, exercising that right has had an impact because of how the policy has been implemented. One aspect of today’s debate that I have found interesting was that no contributions have been made by any hon. Members from Scotland—unless we count Corby as representative of that nation. That is not entirely surprising, because Scottish schools have holidays at a different time of year and Scottish people probably benefit quite nicely from the fact that they all go on holiday in July, when prices are cheaper than they are for us in England. That is an interesting observation.
I will now reflect on some of the other contributions to what I think has been an excellent debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire said something that was repeated by many colleagues: across the House we all agree about the importance of children being in school, and recognise the disadvantage there is to children when they are out of school, for whatever reason, for any sustained period. None of us is saying that we think it is good for children to miss huge amounts of their schooling. We are all always conscious of our responsibility in this place to ensure that our children have the best opportunity to be successful at school. However, we also have to recognise that there is a cost of living crisis, with families feeling the pinch, and that we need to do what we can to support them in those circumstances. My hon. Friend powerfully highlighted the reality faced by time-poor, financially stretched families at this time, and the difficult circumstances that they face.
The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke about the strength of feeling and support on this matter, and he was right to do so. He also raised the issue of whether there will be a greater amount of discretion for a child who is going to a funeral than for someone who wants a holiday without educational benefits; how the policy is being applied shows that there is a difference between such cases. He also touched on one of the devilishly difficult parts of the judgment call on the matter when he called for clear guidelines but more discretion. That is what we all want to an extent, but we should recognise the central contradiction in that.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) spoke up for the tourism industry, as we would expect. He spoke about the escalation in cost for popular events, referring to the London Olympics and the fact that in attempting to maximise their opportunities some people potentially priced themselves out of business and ended up falling victim to what they thought would be good times, as they had been too ambitious about what they could charge. I do not know whether he has turned his attention to the frankly extortionate cost to hon. Members of bed and breakfast accommodation in Manchester at the time of the Labour party conference. I have recently tried to make a booking and discovered that Manchester in September is far more expensive that one would expect.
Toby Perkins
There may shortly be a plug for having party conferences in Bournemouth.
Mr Ellwood
The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me: Bournemouth is better suited for party conferences.
Toby Perkins
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on repeating my suggestion.
It is usual during winding-up speeches to talk about what has been mentioned during the debate, but I will talk about what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley did not talk about: the tourism industry. An important point that some colleagues mentioned is that holiday accommodation is available for 52 weeks a year, or slightly less, and there is pressure to push the customer base into a shorter and shorter period. The petition refers to profiteering holiday companies exploiting people, but that is not the reality. If a crude cap were introduced, they might retain the current price in August but they would be unable to reduce the price in April. The important question is whether people would be better off or whether those who can go away at different times would not get cheaper holidays.
The hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) confessed his sins—it is always good for a Member of Parliament to do that. If he did not quite ask for forgiveness, he at least offered mitigating circumstances. The debate involves the many people who cannot go away during school holidays, as well as the many who can go away only during school holidays—for example, teachers and anyone who works in the education sector and so on. If we increase the pressure, we will push up the cost of their holidays too. The debate started 18 months ago, or 40-odd years ago, depending on how people look at it, but certainly prior to the proposed changes, which, if anything, will push prices up further. What was a problem 18 months ago will be an even bigger problem in a year or two.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) asked why we are talking about the matter now and why it has become so important. I will touch on that, but in his broader view of the debate he said that he supported the petition but not necessarily the proposed remedy. That reflected what many other hon. Members said.
The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) focused on the semantics of “special” and “exceptional” and seemed to question whether there has been a change in policy. The previous Government introduced fines for people who took their children out of school without authorisation. The Secretary of State was clear that he wanted his direction following the statutory instrument to be seen as a change of policy. Head teachers saw it as that, and many in my constituency wrote to parents saying that the policy had changed and that there would be no discretion other than in narrow and exceptional circumstances. That was clearly the intention of the Secretary of State’s policy.
The debate has been consensual and sensible. It has shown that we all believe strongly and passionately that it is vital for our children to be in school for the maximum amount of time, that standards should be resilient and that parents should recognise their responsibility. We recognise that the present situation is desperate because prices have risen faster than wages in 41 of the last 42 months, and families are feeling the pinch. We are discussing another aspect of that cost-of-living crisis. I intended to give some examples of how prices have increased, but many hon. Members have alluded to that so I need not do so. However, the extent of price differences during the high and low seasons is huge and the success of the e-petition calling for swift action is not surprising.
The Association of British Travel Agents has made it clear that price fluctuations are the commercial reality of running a business in a seasonal market, and we understand that. The hon. Member for East Hampshire asked whether the Labour party is proposing a crude cap and rightly gave some reasons why that would be difficult. We do not have a price control policy at a macro level, but that does not mean that there is never a reason to look into whether there is a properly functioning competitive market. I will touch on that.
Many parents believe that they are exploited by the holiday industry, which uses the tight limits on when they can travel to overcharge them, and the huge cost differentials reflect that. However, there have been no thorough studies of the issue in recent years, so it is hard to get to the bottom of the problem and the extent of exploitation. The lack of such a study seems at odds with the Government’s intention of addressing consumer protection concerns. I should be grateful if the Minister commented on whether the apparent contradiction of one group of consumers apparently paying over the odds to subsidise another group is questionable under our consumer protection laws.
Consumer law has strong protections to ensure that the public are charged a reasonable price for a service. That presumably includes arranging a holiday, and does not exempt the law of supply and demand. That is an interesting question for the Government. The purpose of the Consumer Rights Bill is to make those rules clearer, but there is a glaring omission because it does not give consumers or consumer groups any power to access the information they need to check whether that is the case. Does the Minister accept that the only way to resolve that confusion more broadly is to have a proper analysis of holiday prices, and do the Government plan to conduct such research? Was there any research prior to the change of policy?
The situation demonstrates the consequences when there is no organisation to stand up for the rights of consumers as a group. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley suggested that an Offonholiday regulator might not be the answer, but it might be worth considering a broader consumer rights body to act as a useful brake on exploitative practices. Most people accept that the rules of supply and demand will ensure that prices are higher at peak times, but many believe that the extreme divergence in prices is unfair.
Damian Hinds
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that there is something in the operation of some elements of the travel industry market over and above that which can be coped with by the current competition arrangements?
Toby Perkins
That is a valid question. A broader study would provide better information to establish whether that is the case. In July 2012, the Office of Fair Trading concluded a two-year investigation and found that two travel giants had struck deals with a hotel group to restrict smaller agents’ ability to offer discounted hotel rooms. Expedia admitted afterwards that it had
“engaged in cartel conduct in breach of the law”.
In 2013, a discount hotel site alleged that it was forced out of the market after attempting to undercut rivals by offering cheaper prices. There have been allegations of cartel-like activities, and those involved should be investigated and pursued rigorously. Only when we have open, competitive markets can consumers have faith in the prices that they are paying. That is important and entirely legitimate. At the same time, although we recognise that market forces exist, we do not say, “There is never anything to look at”, in the context of whether those markets are being fairly operated. We stand absolutely resolutely on the side of consumers and would be willing to investigate whether action is necessary to ensure that they get a fair deal in the travel market.
The abolition of the Office of Fair Trading, which would have looked at this issue, has highlighted the fact that a gap now exists. There is not another appropriate body that can do what the OFT did. The Competition and Markets Authority is focused on competition and not on outcomes for consumers, and therefore does not complete the same work. Does the Minister share my concerns about the lack of an appropriate body? Does she think that that makes it more likely that consumers will get a raw deal in future?
Other things can be done to support the tourism industry. We recognise that the issue is not only about tourism overseas, but very much about tourism here in the UK. We know that the VAT increase to 20% placed our tourist industry at a competitive disadvantage compared with many of our European competitors, and that the huge increase in business rates over the past three years has had a big impact on many small businesses in the hospitality and tourism industry.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I apologise to my hon. Friend for missing the beginning of his speech, but I had a previous engagement. On the point he just made, does he agree that just as small travel businesses are disproportionately affected by some of those issues, particularly in terms of VAT, small businesses in the hotel and guest house industry can be as well? That is another facet of a complicated debate. I have had representations in my constituency from hoteliers and guest house owners who are concerned about the issue.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend makes the important point, exactly as one might expect of a Member of Parliament for Blackpool, that the tourism industry is not immune to what is happening in the wider economy. It struggles when people do not have money in their pockets. The industry recognises that people are facing a cost-of-living crisis, but it is also facing a cost-of-doing-business crisis and paying ever higher business rates and ever higher energy prices. That impacts on the prices that people have to charge to make a profit. My hon. Friend makes an important point, which fits in precisely with the one I was making.
To reinforce my hon. Friend’s point, I should say that many small hoteliers want to offer cheaper deals but are held back, not only because of the costs of doing business, but because their cash flows are impeded by large travel websites they supply to. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has highlighted the totally outrageous way in which large organisations, effectively through being perpetrators of paying late, force small businesses to bankroll them. The issue of late payments is incredibly important and has a real impact on the tourism industry and the cost we end up paying as consumers.
The previous Labour Government created an interest rate penalty for large firms that delayed payment to their small suppliers. The next Labour Government will further tackle the issue of late payments, which will be very important to small businesses in the tourism industry here in the UK, and will hopefully also be part of easing that cost-of-doing-business crisis.
In conclusion, I strongly welcome this thoughtful, useful debate. We must ensure that markets are fair. We also have a responsibility in this place to respond when our constituents tell us that the Government’s policies are causing problems. In this debate, each of us has reflected on the difficult decisions that we face, between wanting to make sure that all children are in school for the maximum amount of time and recognising that people are feeling the pinch, that there is a cost-of-living crisis and that we need do all we can to help people, not exacerbate the problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)
As everyone has today, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) on leading the debate in the wake of a very significant number of signatures on the e-petition.
It is interesting that this was an issue in Parliament long before I was born—I do not know whether that is a good or a bad thing, but it has clearly been an issue for many decades. I have listened with great interest to the points that have been made. There have been a variety of speeches, coming, in a number of cases, from slightly different perspectives. I agree with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) that it has been a very good debate, which on the whole, has been fairly consensual; there is a reasonable amount of agreement across the Chamber. As a constituency MP, constituents have been getting in touch with me about the subject, and I have a personal interest, as my children are heading rapidly towards school age. Along with a lot of other people, this issue is close to my heart as well.
I would like to put my comments into context at the start and make it clear that the Government do not regulate the price at which goods or services are offered for sale. We have heard from a number of Members that most people would agree that that is the way it should be. We feel that it is a commercial matter for the businesses concerned and that the Government should not intervene. It is not for the Government to dictate to any particular market how it should charge for its services, or to intervene unless there is evidence of market distortion or market failure. That is when Ministers and the Government would get involved.
As we have heard today, and as I hope hon. Members would agree, the UK holiday sector is one of the most competitive markets in the UK, if not Europe. That has made the sector not only one of the most responsive to consumer demands and preferences, but one of the most innovative. It has driven change very much over the years. It is not so long ago—only a few decades—that only the wealthy could contemplate having a holiday abroad, and even holidaying in the UK, which was more popular and much more affordable, was certainly not the norm for many people. That was the situation not that long ago. With the development of cheaper package holidays and so on, far more people have found that they can afford a foreign holiday, but the sector has developed rapidly over the past few decades and expanded in many respects.
An almost endless variety of offers are available for people, which meets the demand from consumers for more choice, flexibility, value and so on. The dynamism and innovation that is shown in this diverse sector is evidence of keen and persistent competition in the market, so the Government feel that there is no market failure and therefore no reason for the Government to intervene to impose price limits. I got the feeling today from colleagues across the House that most would agree on that point.
As the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said in his confession, prices charged across the year reflect demand, availability and the need to attract consumers in a competitive market. It is common to all competitive markets—it is especially acute in fluctuating markets, such as the travel sector—that prices rise and fall according to demand and supply. That is the way in which markets work in general. When demand is high and supply is limited, prices invariably increase to the point at which demand moderates. It is the level of demand that dictates the prices in a competitive market, so if demand increases, so do prices.
Demand appears to remain high in the travel and holiday market, despite the economic difficulties that many people are facing—it has been a very difficult time for many across the economy over recent years. The industry reports that the holiday market is buoyant and consumers are prepared to pay the prices being asked for the services on offer. If people were not prepared to pay the prices being asked, demand would drop and prices would come down, so it is being driven by the fact that people are prepared to pay the prices that holiday companies are demanding.
John Hemming
Given that the issue is about supply and demand, the regulations that the Government introduced affected the demand by focusing it more on one place. Is my hon. Friend as surprised as me that the Department said in the explanatory note to that statutory instrument that an
“impact assessment has not been provided for this instrument as no impact on businesses or civil society organisations is foreseen”?
Jenny Willott
I shall come back to the point about the schools regulations if my hon. Friend will bear with me. If he is not satisfied with my comments, he can come back to me.
There is another important element to consider in respect of the prices in this sector, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Hampshire. During peak periods, the UK industry is in fierce competition with those of other countries, whose consumers want to go on holiday to the same destinations. That competition for limited facilities means that costs rise—it is not all being driven by consumers in the UK—and those costs are reflected in the price put to the consumer. As this is a Europe-wide market, consumers are similarly affected in other countries across Europe. As a result, Governments across Europe have decided that protection is needed for consumers in the package holiday sector over and above that provided by general consumer protection law.
I hope that what I say now answers a point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield. One of the key protections in the package travel directive is the requirement that those arranging and selling package holidays and package tours have in place protection for consumers against their insolvency. That additional protection is an area in which we in the UK were leaders. The air travel organisers’ license—ATOL—system was brought in before the European regime as a result of the huge growth in the UK of the package holiday market in the 1970s and 1980s.
The extra protection is considered necessary because those operating in the package travel market are deemed to be more at risk of insolvency than businesses in other sectors. That is because the business model in the holiday industry is based on predicting demand and committing to those predictions in advance. I mention that because it is further evidence of the extent and level of competition in that market—the industry is forced by those pressures to price as competitively as it can. There is considered to be a higher risk of insolvency in that sector because the margins are thin and because the market is so competitive.
Toby Perkins
The Minister describes the pressures on the market, and we have heard that there was no impact assessment because it was considered that there would be no impact on the industry. Given that the change was introduced after people had booked their holidays and after the holiday companies had set their prices, does she think that it was right to say that there would be no impact whatever on the industry from the change?
Jenny Willott
I cannot comment on the impact assessment done by the Department for Education, but I will come back to the point about the regulations. I think it is wrong to say that the 2013 change was a significant change in the law, but I will come back to that in a minute.
Hon. Members will have gathered from what I have said that I am not convinced that businesses in the holiday market are treating consumers unfairly in the way in which they price their products. It is pressures in the market that cause the fluctuation in prices that some have concluded is unfair. However, the hon. Member for Chesterfield raised allegations of cartel-like behaviour. If hon. Members come across allegations of that nature, they should be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority for investigation. That is what it is there for, or at least it will be from 1 April. Cases like that involving Expedia, which the hon. Member for Chesterfield mentioned, were dealt with by the Office of Fair Trading, but will in the future be dealt with by the Competition and Markets Authority. However, the CMA will also have a role in keeping markets under review for breaches of competition law and consumer detriment, so it has a broader remit. It will also have a role in dealing with consumer enforcement issues when an issue has nationwide implications. This would be an area where that could be considered.
The hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) asked about discussions between travel agents, the holiday industry and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. BIS is in regular contact with the holiday industry on a very wide range of issues—that is the relationship—and my officials will of course raise the points that have been raised in today’s debate when they next meet representatives of the industry, so we will ensure that hon. Members’ views are fed back.
Having said that, I am very sympathetic to those who struggle to afford a holiday in peak season. I appreciate that the difference in price between off season and high season can be very significant. If people have children, it becomes increasingly expensive and difficult to take holidays, and I appreciate that the problem places an extra burden on families. I also completely agree that family holidays are enormously important. They give children opportunities to relax and unwind and create lasting memories, as well as building family relationships and broadening the experiences of children. I have very fond memories of taking holidays as a child with my grandparents and parents and I am sure that everyone in the room would say the same. It is important that children are able to have those experiences and benefit from them.
Clearly, in all of this, the dates of the school holidays are critical. It has been suggested that pressures on the industry might be alleviated by extending the periods during which families can take a holiday, thereby spreading the demand over a longer period. We have heard that idea mentioned today, and it is put forward not only by those who want cheaper family holidays; it is also supported by many in the industry. We have also heard it said a lot today that the rules on school attendance are too strict. Almost every hon. Member who spoke discussed that. People have suggested that schools should be able to approve families going on holiday during term time. Others believe that it would help if schools had different term dates. I shall come back to that point, but, on the issue of absence, despite the clear value that a family holiday can have for children and also for parents, the Government’s view is that a good education is more valuable for pupils in the long run and that getting a good education depends on regular school attendance throughout the school year.
We have heard a lot about the change in regulations in 2013. The hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) gave a very useful summary of the legal framework. I found it quite illuminating and am sure that a number of other colleagues did as well. What the Government did in 2013 was remove the misconception held by some parents that pupils were entitled to 10 days’ absence for holidays per year. There was actually no entitlement in the previous regulations—that was not what they said. We have clarified that school heads should accept a request for a leave of absence only in exceptional circumstances.
We have heard a number of examples of cases in which requests have been turned down by head teachers. Many of them are very distressing, but I clearly cannot comment on individual cases, not knowing the full details. Let me make it clear that the Government have not said that any absence is not possible. We have given head teachers the discretion to make that call. In addition, we have not specified what constitutes exceptional circumstances, as we believe that cases need to be considered individually. A number of hon. Members mentioned the need to trust head teachers, and that is exactly what the Government are trying to do—we want to ensure that head teachers have the power and discretion to look at the individual circumstances of an application and take them into account.
John Hemming
Obviously, it is difficult being a Minister in a different Department. Will the Minister ask the Ministers in the Department for Education to write to me and the other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate about what pressures Ofsted is putting on schools to reduce the number of absences? I ask because if Ofsted is driving down the numbers, that affects what is considered to be exceptional and what is not. Obviously, some of the cases that I would consider exceptional, such as funerals, are not being considered as such by the schools.
Jenny Willott
I am happy to ask colleagues to write to my hon. Friend, because clearly I haven’t got a clue about that. As a Minister in BIS, I do not know what discussions Ofsted and the Department for Education have had, but I am happy to pass the request on to colleagues in the Department for Education.
Mr Mudie
Could the Minister ask the relevant Education Minister to tell the people who have attended the debate whether a child who has an excellent attendance record can have a holiday with the rest of their family only outside term-time? Can the fact that they have a perfect attendance record and so on be accepted as exceptional? That is the dilemma that heads face: the problem is not exceptional events such as funerals, but the year in, year out problem of those who cannot afford a family holiday unless they take it outside term time. Will the Minister reassure heads that that can be regarded as exceptional?
Jenny Willott
When we contact colleagues in the Department for Education, I am sure that we can send them a copy of Hansard so that they can respond to the hon. Gentleman and others who have raised that point. When head teachers decide whether to grant absence, they must be able to take into account individual circumstances such as the examples raised today of parents in the military or the police, or cases in which a close relative has died. We cannot legislate for such instances; they must be left to the head teacher’s discretion.
Several hon. Members have asked for head teachers to be given clearer guidance on what constitutes exceptional circumstances, and the point has been made that it is difficult to balance the provision of clearer guidance with allowing head teachers discretion and trusting them to make the right call. I will refer that matter to colleagues in the Department for Education.
John Hemming
A number of participants in the debate think that head teachers are making the wrong decisions. If Ofsted is putting pressure on numbers, guidance would help us to analyse that in more depth. Prior to the changes, less than 10% of parents took advantage of the process in primary schools and less than 3% in secondary schools, so it did not affect many people. Those were clearly special circumstances, but for some reason they were deemed not to be acceptable. Guidance would give head teachers strength to argue with Ofsted.
Jenny Willott
My figures on the number of parents who took their children out of school are slightly different from my hon. Friend’s. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) also said that most parents do not take their children out of school for holidays, and my figures show that in 2011-12, some 90% of secondary school pupils and 80% of primary school pupils did not miss school for a family holiday. Although the overwhelming majority of pupils are not missing school to go on holiday, therefore, a significant number of pupils are. The Department for Education was sufficiently concerned about the matter to want to tighten up the rules. I understand that in some areas, parents thought that they were entitled to 10 days’ absence a year for holidays, which was not the intention of the original regulations. The regulations introduced last year were designed to correct that misconception and clarify that schools should authorise absence only in exceptional circumstances.
John Hemming
The discrepancy between the Minister’s figures and mine may rest on the fact that mine deal with authorised absence, whereas hers include unauthorised absence as well. Unauthorised absence is increasing, which is another factor in this debate.
Jenny Willott
That may well be the case, but it does not undermine the argument that we must ensure that parents do not take their children out of school for holidays unless there are exceptional reasons for doing so. As the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, family holidays taken during term time disrupt the education not only of the individual student but of other pupils. The hon. Member for Leeds East, whose wife is a head teacher, said the same thing. Such absences create additional work for teachers who have to try to help pupils catch up on their return while looking after the other students in the class and ensuring that their progress is not disrupted. Removing a child from school has significant implications for other pupils in the class and for teachers. The Government do not want to change the rules on permitted absences, because the effects on a child’s education and a school’s ability to teach pupils effectively are significant.
Another suggestion has been to introduce more flexibility into school term dates. The holiday industry argues that making the peak period longer would spread consumer demand, and because holiday companies could make the same amount of money over a longer period of time, they would be able to reduce prices a little for families. The spreading of demand would also reduce competition for facilities and allow them to be used more efficiently. Although there would still be competition with organisers of holidays from other countries, it would be spread over a longer period of time.
Mr Ellwood
Is the Minister saying that she agrees with that proposal? I gave the example of Kent, Yorkshire and Dorset having slightly different school holidays. If she agrees with the idea, how would it best be co-ordinated?
Jenny Willott
The staggering of school holiday periods may well lengthen the period of peak demand and help to lower prices. I completely understand the suggestion that the Government should arrange for holiday periods to be spread, but currently local authorities, not the Government, set the term and holiday dates for community and voluntary-controlled schools. Academies, free schools and voluntary-aided schools—including some church schools—set their own dates. The Deregulation Bill, which is currently before the House, will extend the power to set term dates to all schools by 2015. The Government believe that term dates should be dealt with locally, through negotiation and co-operation across an area, to take into account the educational needs of students and the practicalities of varying the school year. I cannot remember which hon. Member raised the fact that someone with a child in a primary school and a child in a secondary school wants their holiday dates to line up.
Justin Tomlinson
I raised that point. I accept that schools can lead locally, but the reason why the system works so successfully in Germany is because the dates are set by regions, which ensures that children in primary school are not off at a different time from those in a nearby secondary school. Although I accept that the decision should be made locally, I think that the Government might guide regions to pick the dates.
Jenny Willott
It is clear that such a decision will have to be made across a local authority area, or more broadly. When the Deregulation Bill becomes law, we will look at how that can be done most effectively, and with the minimum disruption, to help schools and families.
Mr Ellwood
I am sorry to press the matter, but I think it is an important takeaway from the debate. As my hon. Friend has just said, some co-ordination will be required. I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), and we know that it is quite a challenge to get Poole, Bournemouth and Christchurch to co-ordinate. It does happen, but it takes time. It will be tricky to get all local councils to co-ordinate. I encourage the Government, or at least the Department for Education, to consider the leadership role that may be necessary. Whether the decision is taken on a county or regional basis is something for a later date.
Jenny Willott
As I have said, free schools, academies and some church schools can set their own dates. There is already some co-operation, or at least awareness, between some local schools regarding what others in the area are doing. When the Deregulation Bill gives more schools the power to set term and holiday dates, we will encourage schools to collaborate more widely to take into account the needs of families and other schools in the area. I am confident we can ensure that the hon. Gentleman’s views are fed into the process and taken into account by the Department for Education.
John Hemming
On that point, schedule 14 to the Deregulation Bill will give schools the power to set term and holiday dates, but in constituencies such as mine, one family may have children in a primary school in the Birmingham local education authority and children in a secondary school in the Solihull local education authority. I would propose bringing in the Education Committee to look at the country as a whole and suggest sub-regions wherein local education authorities could co-ordinate. A parent would not want their children in a Birmingham primary school to have different holidays from their children in a Solihull secondary school.
Jenny Willott
I cannot really comment on what the Education Committee should or should not look at, but I am sure that its Chairman, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), will have noted my hon. Friend’s comments. Perhaps my hon. Friend and anyone else present with views on that matter might wish to take it up with the Chairman directly and suggest that his Committee initiates such an inquiry.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
I just want to make the Minister aware that not everyone present wants Parliament, the Education Committee or Ministers to determine schools’ term dates. We really should leave such decisions to be made locally. Schools currently manage to cope quite well. Different parts of the country already have different holiday dates for different traditions—for example, places such as Leicestershire and Wigan. We should allow local authorities to work with schools to recognise what is best for their areas.
Jenny Willott
I must confess that as an MP representing a Welsh constituency, I benefited significantly last week when Parliament was in recess because it was half term in England. When I went home to Cardiff, all the places I took my small children were mercifully empty because half term in Wales is this week. There is already a difference between some areas, and it is possible to enable that on a broader basis in order to extend the peak period, which would hopefully bring down prices across the sector.
To conclude, the Government are not convinced that higher prices in school holiday periods are the result of market abuse by the holiday industry. Rather, they reflect market forces in a very competitive sector, and are made worse by the fact that there is international competition as well. I recognise the fact that family holidays can be incredibly valuable, but they should not be at the expense of a child’s education. School attendance throughout the school year remains critical—we know that pupils who stay at school for longer do much better in their final exams.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I absolutely agree with the Minister, but although we know that school attendance is important, we also know that parents are not daft. A constituent of mine who is a governor at a primary school in Winchester said to me that the changes to the rules are an insult to his intelligence and discretion—he would never dream of taking a child out of school at a crucial time. I find it perplexing that a Conservative Government are meddling in this area full stop, but we should think especially about the early years—reception and year 1. Does the Minister have a view on whether there should be more discretion during a child’s early years in primary school? Do we really need to come down on head teachers and question their integrity in the way that we appear to be doing?
Jenny Willott
I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government are actually ensuring that head teachers have the discretion to make a decision in exceptional circumstances. Clearly, the decision that a head teacher makes will involve looking at the child’s age, the circumstances under which the parent has applied and so on. The point of the regulations that the Government have put in place is that we are leaving it to the discretion of head teachers to take into account individual circumstances and make a judgment. That is exactly the reverse of Government meddling. However, the issue is not just the effect on a child’s education. As I and a number of other Members have already said, when a child is taken out of school in term time, that does not just affect that child’s education; it has a broader impact on the school, the teacher and other pupils in the class. We must take that into account as well, and I am sure that head teachers will consider that when making decisions.
Finally, I congratulate the House on this very lively debate. It has been a really good example of a debate in which a number of different views have been put forward but the tone has remained extremely pleasant. I have an awful lot of points to feed back to the Department for Education, and I am sure that Ministers have been listening carefully and will respond to Members’ concerns. Thank you very much, Dr McCrea, and I congratulate Members again on a really good debate.
John Hemming
I thank you, Dr McCrea, for your chairmanship, Mr Turner for his able work, and all the contributors to the debate. I do not think that there is any advantage in repeating what everyone has said, but there are some issues that must be sorted out, so let us get on with it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the e-petition relating to holiday companies charging extra in school holidays.
Written Statements
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Flood Response and Recovery
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I wish to update the House on the Government’s ongoing work on flood response and recovery.
Since the east coast surge in early December, over 6,480 properties have been flooded across England, but over the same period more than 1.3 million properties have been protected by flood protection measures. According to local Gold commanders, 2,600 homes have been flooded since the start of January, and a further 7,000 have been cut off by flood water or have lost access to services. COBR has been meeting to monitor the continuing threat of groundwater flooding and progress in Somerset. As weather patterns return to those more usual for the time of year, coastal and river flood risk is diminishing.
Locally, the transition to recovery is under way and most local areas have convened recovery meetings. The ministerial recovery group is co-ordinating Government support to local areas and infrastructure owners and operators to enable a return to normality as quickly as possible.
Government support for recovery
The Government are providing a range of funding packages to help the country recover from this severe weather, and over the last week, the full set of arrangements have been confirmed. Information can be found at: www. gov.uk/government/news/uk-floods-2014-government-response.
The package of support includes:
The £37 million severe weather recovery scheme to support communities and contribute to highway infrastructure repairs in affected areas;
The repair and renewal grant scheme for homes and business providing up to £5,000 to improve properties’ ability to withstand future flooding;
£4 million of central Government funding for council tax relief for flood-affected homes;
Central Government funding for 100% business rate relief for three months for flood-affected businesses;
The £10 million farming recovery fund to support farm businesses to restore flooded agricultural land and bring it back into production as quickly as possible.
The £10 million business support scheme providing hardship funding for small and medium businesses;
The £130 million DEFRA/Environment Agency scheme for repairs and rebuilding of flood defence assets; work has already commenced on those defences with the highest priorities;
The enhanced Bellwin scheme that I announced to the House on 13 February.
Private sector and voluntary sector support
We are also grateful to support offered by the private sector. Banks have offered financial support to businesses and personal customers, while other businesses have given practical help. There have also been numerous generous offers of support from community groups. Government have been working to make sure that these offers can reach the areas that need them. The National Farmers Union reported the fantastic response of the farming community after setting up a centre to redistribute fodder to farmers who have lost theirs due to flooding—it has been overwhelmed by offers of support.
Enhancing insurance cover
On 18 February, Ministers met with the insurance industry to hear how they intend to help people and businesses affected by the recent severe weather. They informed us that 2,000 loss adjusters stand ready to support those flooded and we will be holding regular meetings to review progress and to find solutions to any issues arising on the ground.
To ensure that we take a longer term view on this work the Prime Minister is now chairing the Cabinet Committee on Flooding to co-ordinate strategic long-term plans on flood recovery and flood resilience. More broadly, there will be further lessons to be learnt across government and its agencies. Gold commanders maintain a state of readiness to respond to future flooding should the risk increase again in coming weeks.
Ministers will continue to update the House on progress.
February Recess (Department's Work)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I would like to update hon. Members on the main items of business undertaken by my Department since the House rose for recess.
Our priority has been to continue to help those areas affected by the recent weather and flooding, and a separate statement has been made today to outline the range of action that the Government have been supporting and co-ordinating over recess.
Notwithstanding:
Increasing house building
On 20 February, official statistics confirmed that England is building again, with 122,590 new starts last year, up by 23% on the previous year, and the highest since 2007. Despite the poor weather conditions over the winter, work on new homes in the last quarter was also up by 23% compared to the same period in 2012.
Recent research by the National House Building Council reported housing registrations rose by 30% in England in 2013 and by 60% in London; registrations across the country are at their highest since 2007 and represent the highest annual total in London since their records began 26 years ago. Similarly, according to the Office for National Statistics, new orders in residential construction have risen to their highest level since 2007. House builders have directly linked the increase in house building with the increased confidence in the market from the Government’s Help to Buy schemes.
This is more to do to get Britain building. It is particularly notable that the National House Building Council figures show that house building is falling in Wales, thanks to the extra regulation on the housing market introduced by the Welsh Government and their lack of support for home buying.
The steady increase in house building in England is confirmation of the effectiveness of the coalition Government’s actions to fix the broken housing market that we inherited in 2010; cutting the deficit to keep interest rates low; prioritising resources to build new housing and helping buyers get on to and move up the housing ladder.
Selling surplus public sector property
On 20 February, my Department outlined the Government’s ongoing progress on disposals of surplus public sector land. We have now sold enough brownfield land to build 68,000 new homes. Some 430 sites have now been sold, and given that each new home supports up to two jobs, these land sales will sustain over 135,000 jobs as the homes are built.
The Government are on track to release enough land for 100,000 homes by 2015. We are making it easier for the public to see what land we own and challenge Government if it could be used better. We are encouraging councils to follow suit, to help them free up brownfield land for new homes and to deliver financial savings from better property asset management.
Helping people build their own home
Following the passage of the secondary legislation through Parliament, I can confirm that self-builders are now exempt from paying the community infrastructure levy. This will help up to 3,000 mothballed self-build homes get off the ground. This change is part of our determination to boost housing supply and help would-be self-builders realise their aspirations, to build their own home, an extension or family annex.
It is the latest in a range of measures to increase the number of people building their own home, including making it easier to get a self-build mortgage, freeing up more surplus public sector land for self-build projects, a £30 million custom-build homes fund, and planning guidance which makes it clear that councils should be supporting self-build in their area.
From April, householders will also benefit from a new council tax relief from family annexes, and we will be taking further steps to remove the unfair imposition of section 106 tariffs from self-builders, annexes and extensions.
Supporting a vibrant private rented sector
My Department has also set out plans to create a fairer and more flexible private rented sector, raising standards of property conditions and rooting out the small minority of rogue landlords. We have already provided £6.5 million to help councils tackle the likes of “beds in sheds”, but we are now exploring a range of measures which will tackle problems such as retaliatory eviction, illegal eviction and hazardous properties. These proposals are balanced with the need to ensure that the vast majority of good landlords and satisfied tenants are not overly burdened with red tape which would force up rents and reduce choice.
In a consultation, we are also reviewing the outdated laws which prevent London householders from renting out their property on short-term lets. Laws dating back to 1973 prevent people renting out their home for less than three months without seeking “change of use” planning permission (whereas, by contrast, long-term rentals do not need planning permission). This legal requirement is simply out of step with the rest of the country and arguably outdated in the light of the internet technologies fuelling both demand and supply for informal short-term letting.
Remembering the Holocaust
On 17 February, my Department announced details of a competition which will help ensure Britain has a permanent and fitting memorial to the holocaust. Six young people will be able to join a youth forum set up by the Prime Minister’s Holocaust Commission, with one winner, chosen by holocaust survivor Professor Elie Wiesel sitting on the commission itself. Young people aged under-21 can enter by writing an essay which answers the question:
“Why is it so important that we remember the Holocaust and how can we make sure future generations never forget”.
Copies of the press notices and associated documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
Flood Relief Operations (Call-out Order)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)
A call-out order has been made under section 56(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called into permanent service to assist with flood relief operations in the United Kingdom. A number of high readiness reserves have already been mobilised in support of local authorities and Government agencies. This order will enable the call-out of additional reservists. Currently, we envisage calling out up to 500 reservists to fulfil a range of specialist and general roles. We plan to call out only willing and available reservists, who have the support of their employer. The order takes effect from 14 February 2014 and ceases to have effect on 13 February 2015.
Carbon Capture and Storage
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
I am pleased to inform Parliament that today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I are signing a contract with Shell to take their world leading gas carbon capture and storage (CCS) project into the next stage of development.
The Government have agreed a multi-million pound contract for engineering, design and financial work on the Peterhead CCS project in Aberdeenshire. The world’s first-planned gas CCS project, Peterhead involves installing carbon capture technology on to Scottish and Southern Energy’s (SSE’s) existing Peterhead gas power plant, and transporting the CO2 100 km offshore for safe, permanent storage 2 km under the North sea in the old Goldeneye gas field. If built, the project could save 1 million tonnes CO2 each year and provide clean electricity to over 500,000 homes.
The project also opens a potential new future for the North sea—turning old oil and gas fields into CO2 stores, offering the possibility of using CO2 for enhanced oil recovery and giving new opportunities for the UK’s world leading offshore and subsea industries.
Today’s announcement follows the award in December of a front end engineering design (FEED) contract to the White Rose project in Yorkshire, and marks a key milestone in the Government’s CCS competition. We are investing around £100 million from our £1 billion budget to take the Peterhead and White Rose CCS projects to the next stage of development—which together could support over 2,000 jobs during construction and provide clean electricity for over 1 million homes. In late 2015, the projects will take final investment decisions, with the Government taking decisions shortly after.
By bringing forward CCS, we could save more than £30 billion a year by 2050. Without it, achieving an affordable, low-carbon energy mix with renewable and nuclear energy alone will be much more difficult and more expensive.
UK Continental Shelf (Wood Review)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
Today Sir Ian Wood has published the final report from his review of how to maximise recovery of oil and gas in the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). I am grateful to Sir Ian and his review team for the work they have done, and to all those who contributed. The report can be viewed at: www.woodreview.co.uk. I can inform the House of the Government’s initial response.
The UK oil and gas industry is of national importance; it makes a substantial contribution to the economy, supporting around 450,000 jobs, and had record capital expenditure in 2013 of around £14 billion. Oil and gas will continue to be a vital part of the energy mix as we transition to a low-carbon economy, with indigenous oil and gas production supplying the equivalent of about half of the UK’s primary energy demand. It is vital, therefore, that we continue to maximise economic recovery of our indigenous hydrocarbon reserves, thereby boosting growth, energy security, and jobs.
I commissioned the review in June 2013 because, while investment levels are rising and near-term prospects are strong, there are new challenges for exploration and production, and the environment is very different to when production peaked approximately15 years ago. Production and exploration levels have fallen, and production efficiency has declined. The review recognises the positive steps already taken by the Government to incentivise recovery, such as the allowances for brownfield and small fields. The report recommends that industry commit to working with Government to implement the UK oil and gas industrial strategy, and to develop new industry strategies in areas such as exploration and decommissioning cost reduction.
The Government accept Sir Ian’s key recommendation that Government should work with industry to adopt a cohesive tripartite approach between industry, HM Treasury and the UKCS stewardship body to a new shared strategy of maximising economic recovery for the UK (MER UK). Sir Ian Wood has identified some key recommendations for industry, including that industry commit to making the most of production facilities, does more to promote third party access to infrastructure, develops new infrastructure business models, improves collaboration, improves asset stewardship and reduces the legal and commercial burden of working in the UKCS.
The report also recommends that stewardship of the UKCS should be under a new arm’s-length body, funded by industry and better resourced. The review heard consistent praise for the staff working in the current stewardship unit within DECC, but the review concludes that it needs to be strengthened and focused around a new MER UK strategy if it is to support industry in successfully meeting the challenges in the UKCS.
Therefore, and subject to further detailed work to support the business case, we shall proceed with taking the stewardship of the UKCS into the next phase, with a new arm’s-length body, funded by industry, with new resources and any necessary statutory powers to meet that challenge. We will develop plans for a new arm’s-length body, and will introduce legislation in the Fourth Session to bring the new body into effect. The next step will be to appoint a chief executive officer, with the aim of having that person in post in the summer 2014, so that they can steer the work to design and build the new body, which could begin operating in shadow form in the autumn. Stakeholders are being invited to participate in an interim advisory panel on implementation, which Sir Ian Wood has agreed to chair. I will publish a formal response to the report—along with a more detailed road map for implementation—later in the spring.
Implementing the recommendations will require Government and industry to adopt a new, more collaborative, approach to stewardship of the UKCS. It is vital that we create the right environment for maximising economic recovery because the prize on offer is considerable. Sir Ian’s report estimates that full and rapid implementation will deliver at least 3 billion to 4 billion barrels of oil equivalent more than would otherwise be recovered over the next 20 years, bringing over £200 billion1 of additional value to the UK economy.
1At current prices and unadjusted for inflation.
UN Commission of Inquiry (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
On 17 February the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) published its final report. I would like to inform the House of the commission’s findings and to explain how the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responding on behalf of the Government.
The Commission of Inquiry (COI) was established by a unanimous decision of the UN Human Rights Council in March 2013. Its mandate is to investigate independently the reports of systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. These include violations of the right to life, the right to food, freedom of expression and freedom of movement; violations associated with prison camps, torture and inhuman treatment, and arbitrary detention; and enforced disappearances, including in the form of abductions of nationals of other states. The commission was also tasked to conduct its investigation with a view to ensuring that those responsible for human rights violations will be held accountable for their crimes. The UK has actively supported the work of the commission. In October 2013, we arranged a visit by the Commissioners Justice Kirby and Sonja Biserko to the UK, where they took evidence from North Korean refugees and from NGOs. The Commissioners also met me as FCO Minister of State, as well as other parliamentarians.
The commission has systematically collected detailed and damning accounts of appalling human rights violations in a way that has never been done previously. Their findings are horrifying. They include: torture, rape, executions and disappearances; using deliberate starvation as a means of control and punishment in detention facilities; a virtually absolute ban on ordinary citizens travelling abroad; and severe punishments for practising Christianity. While the COI acknowledges it is neither a judicial body nor a prosecutor, it believes its findings constitute reasonable grounds to establish that crimes against humanity have been committed. The commissioners have found that the DPRK is a state where human rights violations and crimes against humanity are ingrained into the institutional framework, pursuant to policies established at the highest level of the state. These crimes against humanity are ongoing and occur as part of a systematic and widespread attack of the state against anyone who is considered to pose a threat to the political system and leadership of the DPRK. The report finds that the DPRK’s isolationist mindset, aversion to engagement with the international community, all-encompassing indoctrination policies, and brutal security institutions protected by impunity are without parallel in the contemporary world.
On behalf of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I have issued a statement welcoming the spotlight the commission has shone on these shocking human rights violations, which have gone on for far too long. I have urged the DPRK authorities to respond in detail to the contents of the report and to address the violations that it documents. UK officials have ensured the DPRK is aware of this statement.
We are now studying the recommendations of the report in detail. Although the commission has now concluded its work, the UK believes that this should be a beginning and not an end. The international community must respond to the report’s findings. On March 17 the commission will formally present its report to the UN Human Rights Council. As in previous years, the UK will be supporting a Human Rights Council resolution on the situation in the DPRK. We will work closely with the EU and other like-minded partners to ensure the Council sends a strong message to the DPRK that there can be no impunity for human rights violators.
G6 (Cracow)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The informal G6 group of Ministers of the Interior from the six largest European Union countries, including representatives of the United States of America, held its most recent meeting in Cracow on 5 and 6 February 2014.
The summit was chaired by the Polish Interior Minister Bartlomiej Sienkiewicz and I represented the United Kingdom. The other participating states were represented by Thomas De Maizière (Germany), Angelino Alfano (Italy) and Jorge Fernández Diaz (Spain). France were represented at official level. Eric Holder (the US Attorney-General) and Jeh Johnson (US Secretary of Homeland Security) attended the second day.
The first formal session was on the development of EU justice and home affairs policy. There was general agreement on the need to focus on implementation of the existing agenda, rather than to develop new polices, concentrating on practical co-operation rather than new legislation. I said that it was important that member states drove the agenda. I stressed that tackling organised immigration crime remained an issue and highlighted the increasing problem of human trafficking, drawing attention to my intentions to bolster the UK approach through modern slavery legislation. I also raised the need for a renewed emphasis on effective measures against abuse of free movement and expressed concern at the emerging links between terrorism and organised crime.
The second formal session concerned Asian organised crime. Ministers exchanged their experiences and I set out action in the UK through the recent organised crime strategy and National Crime Agency. I further emphasised UK work to improve our intelligence picture of organised crime and to build capacity in Asian countries in order to tackle criminal activity upstream.
The third and fifth formal sessions related to the surveillance of EU citizens and protection of privacy. Ministers exchanged views on the need to find an effective balance between privacy and effective prevention of terrorism and crime. I called for a calm and measured approach and reiterated the importance of intelligence in the fight against terrorism. I welcomed the proposed additional protections proposed for non-US citizens in President Obama’s recent speech. The US set out its plans to tighten controls on access to bulk data, and provide enhanced Executive branch oversight. There would also be greater protection given to safeguarding the rights of non-US citizens. The US emphasised the benefits to the EU of US intelligence and co-operation.
The fourth formal session concerned the current challenges posed by terrorism. Ministers focused on the changing trends in terrorist activity and agreed on the need to intensify co-operation between member states in combating terrorism. I highlighted the dangers posed by foreign fighters in the Syria conflict and stressed the need for international co-operation to tackle this issue. I further set out the need to focus on co-operation with Turkey as a priority, given that it represents the key entry point for many European nationals travelling to fight in Syria. Finally, I stressed the importance of effective sharing of intra-EU passenger name records data in tackling the challenges posed by terrorists.
At the formal dinner on 5 February, I reminded Ministers of the need to seek improvements in the exchange of criminal records for child sex offenders. I also updated Ministers on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. The Polish Minister raised the issue of the situation in Ukraine.
The next G6 meeting will take place in Spain in June.
Visa Regulations
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
On 3 February 2014 my hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Immigration the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) announced proposals to change the fees for immigration and nationality applications made to the Home Office and for services provided by the Department.
The announcement included a table setting out the proposals in detail and the Immigration and Nationality Fees Regulations (2014) were laid in Parliament on the same day. There were errors in the fees regulations and in the table accompanying the announcement. First, the fees for applications for entry clearance as a tier 4 student and tier 5 youth mobility and temporary worker were erroneously omitted from the regulations, though they were included in the explanatory memorandum and the fees table accompanying the announcement. Secondly, the fee for the User Pays Visa Application Centre service overseas should be £59 rather than the £53 set out in the regulations and the table. This is an optional service that allows overseas applicants to access visa services at a convenient location provided by contractors. The £59 fee represents the unit cost of providing the service.
These errors have now been corrected. I have laid corrected regulations. A new version of the fees table, which also includes various presentational improvements and corrections to minor typographical errors has been placed in the House Library.
Guide to Coroner Services
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)
The Government are today publishing the new “Guide to Coroner Services” and accompanying “Coroner investigations - a short guide”.
The guide explains to bereaved people, and others who come into contact with coroner services across England and Wales, what they can expect from a coroner’s investigation. It sets out the standards of service that they should receive and what they can do if they are not satisfied.
The guide is the final element in the Government’s package of coroner reforms under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which we implemented in July last year. It is the product of our spring 2013 consultation which sought views on implementing those reforms. The guide replaces and updates the guide to coroners and inquests and charter for coroner services’ which applied to the coroner system under the previous coroner legislation, the Coroners Act 1988 and the Coroners Rules 1984.
The accompanying “Coroner investigations - a short guide” is a quick reference leaflet version of the guide which we have produced following suggestions made in the consultation.
Unlike the previous publication which it replaces, the new guide is statutory guidance. It is issued under section 42 of the 2009 Act, which allows the Lord Chancellor to issue guidance on how the coroner system is expected to operate in relation to bereaved people, including the way in which they can participate in coroner investigations.
I believe that the guide—together with the short guide—will help to make standards of service more transparent for coroners and bereaved people. It will also assist the Chief Coroner in discharging his responsibility under the 2009 Act for overseeing the coroner service.
We are distributing hard copies of the guide and short guide to all coroners’ offices across England and Wales, as well as publishing it on gov.uk. There is also a Welsh translation.
Copies of the guide and short guide are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses, in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office.
Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern Franchise
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)
On 18 February 2014 my Department announced the successful conclusion of negotiations for the direct award of a new, six-period franchise agreement to First Capital Connect that will see that company continue to provide services from the end of their current franchise on 31 March 20141 to the start of the new combined Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise later this year.
Through this contract I have guaranteed services for passengers and ensured that the transition to the new franchise will be as smooth as possible, maximising the value for the taxpayer. This short contract is a key step in ensuring the delivery of the significant £6 billion Thameslink programme, which will transform the lives of rail passengers in the south-east through the delivery of new trains and more capacity, allowing 24 trains per hour through some of the most congested routes in the country.
1The current franchise expires at 01:59 on 1 April 2014, at the end of the previous day’s services.
Income Support Lone Parent Statistics (Correction)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)
I regret to inform the House that an error has been identified within the income support lone parent regime official statistic. This has caused an over-count in the number of income support lone parent sanctions reported within four releases of the statistic (February, May, August and November 2013). During this time, a number of parliamentary questions (PQs) were tabled requesting this data; a list of all such PQs and the Members who tabled them can be found below:
PQ UIN 144830 - Kerry McCarthy
PQ UIN 148374 - Fiona Mactaggart
PQ UIN 150516 - Dame Joan Ruddock
PQ UIN 159327 - Shaun Woodward
PQ UIN 161444 - Jessica Morden
PQ UIN 165640 - Frank Field
PQ UIN 174368 - Stephen Timms
PQ UIN 175527 - David Ward
PQ UIN 175730 - Mike Hancock
PQ UIN 177178 - Barbara Keeley
PQ UIN 180927 - John Healy
I apologise to the House for this inadvertent error. The erroneous data were corrected on 19 February 2014 and are available at the following URL:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/income-support-lone-parent-regime-figures-on-sanctions-and-work-focused-interviews--2.
The affected figures are provided in summary below:
12-month period | Publication | Number of Sanctions | |
|---|---|---|---|
Incorrect | Correct | ||
Oct 2011 to Sep 2012 | Feb 2013 | 64,100 | 56,800 |
Jan 2012 to Dec 2012 | May 2013 | 61,400 | 51,800 |
Apr 2012 to Mar 2013 | Aug 2013 | 57,900 | 48,400 |
Jul 2012 to Jun 2013 | Nov 2013 | 61,500 | 45,100 |
Pensions
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to announce the Government will be introducing new measures to require transparency for transaction charges in pension schemes. Later today we intend to table an amendment to the Pensions Bill 2013 to introduce this latest step in the Government’s wider plans to ensure consumers receive value for money from their pension savings.
Transparency of costs and charges is fundamental for good scheme governance and to enabling comparison between schemes. Our amendment, which is intended for debate at the Report stage of the Pensions Bill 2013 in the House of Lords this Wednesday, will place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring greater transparency around the transaction costs incurred by work-based defined contribution schemes.
Requiring increased transparency is the latest step in the wider Government programme to see fair charges for people who are automatically enrolled into workplace pensions. Last year, we consulted on whether to cap charges in the default funds of schemes used for automatic enrolment, and the Government remain committed to seeing this policy through during the life of this Parliament. Accordingly, our response to the consultation on charges, and further proposals on quality and transparency in workplace pension schemes, will be published soon.
Grand Committee
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews) (Lab)
My Lords, I advise the Committee that, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Public Bodies (Merger of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Bodies (Merger of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions) Order 2014.
Relevant Documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of the draft order is to give legal effect to the administrative merger that took place just over four years ago, on 1 January 2010, between the Revenue and Customs Prosecutions Office, which was the prosecuting arm of HM Revenue and Customs, and the Crown Prosecution Service. The decision to merge the CPS and the RCPO was announced in April 2009 by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, who was the Attorney-General at the relevant time. The purpose of the merger was to create a strengthened prosecution service, to safeguard and improve the high-quality work done by both organisations in serious and complex cases and to provide efficiency savings. Those objectives have to a large extent been achieved.
The merger that took place in 2010 did not involve legislation. Sir Keir Starmer, who was then DPP, was appointed Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions as well. Since that date, the person holding the positions of both DPP and Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions—now Ms Alison Saunders—has been running the two offices under one umbrella. There is a single management structure and cases investigated by HMRC are now prosecuted by a specialist fraud division of the CPS.
Although the administrative merger has been a success, there are disadvantages in the two organisations still existing as legally distinct entities. First, it might give the appearance that the merger is incomplete and could readily be reversed. This might call into question whether the change is intended to be permanent. Secondly, it has practical implications for how the organisations work. The Government consider that a legal merger would bring about greater efficiency and effectiveness. That is why we are bringing forward the present draft order under the Public Bodies Act 2011. The Act provides for the functions of certain public bodies—listed in the schedules—to be abolished, merged or transferred. The effect of this draft order is to transfer the functions of the Director of Revenue and Customs Prosecutions to the DPP, thus putting the existing merger of the RCPO and CPS on a statutory basis.
As there is a requirement for Ministers to consult on proposals before laying a draft order under the Act, a consultation exercise took place in 2012. Views were sought on the proposal that legal effect should be given to the administrative merger and on whether the proposed approach would achieve the desired effect. Those organisations and individuals who commented—only eight did so—either supported the proposal or did not object to it. There was concern that the specialist expertise of the RCPO should not be lost; the Government agree that this is an important aim. As the consultation response explained, cases investigated by HM Revenue and Customs are handled within the CPS by the same specialist casework division that prosecutes the most complex and serious fraud and corruption cases investigated by the police.
An order made under the 2011 Act must serve,
“the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions, having regard to (a) efficiency, … (b) effectiveness, … (c) economy, and … (d) securing appropriate accountability to Ministers”.
I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its careful consideration of the draft order, and I welcome its conclusion, which was expressed in these terms:
“the Government have demonstrated that the draft Order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions and complies with the test set out in the 2011 Act”.
I do not think that your Lordships would welcome a detailed description of the draft order, which—as is so often the case—is by no means as brief as my summary of its effect might suggest. As for its effect, I cannot do better than quote these lines from the Scrutiny Committee’s report:
“The Government present a convincing argument that the overall effect of the transfer of the responsibilities of the RCPO to the CPS will result in streamlining the process by including it in a larger group where economies of scale can be identified from using prosecutors and administrators for a wider range of duties. Although the economies realised by this Order are comparatively small, the improvements to efficiency are more substantial, with the potential for the more flexible structure possible under the new arrangements”.
I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, perhaps I can insert a few words of welcome for the measure. I used to prosecute in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland as an advocate depute. From time to time, cases arose north of the border where the Revenue wanted to prosecute in the High Court. As the Minister will know, in Scotland all prosecutions are in the hands of the Lord Advocate. I remember having to deal with officials from the then Inland Revenue and, separately, HM Customs, who were somewhat upset that they could not conduct those prosecutions themselves but had to hand the papers over to me or my colleagues so that we could conduct the matters on their behalf.
Of course, the order has nothing to do with the position in Scotland, which is quite unaffected, and it is unnecessary to do anything about it because it is well established that prosecutions will continue to be handled by the Crown Office under the overall supervision of the Lord Advocate. As the noble Lord said a moment ago, my experience was that efficiency was promoted by combining the prosecution element—the exercise in presenting the material in accordance with the best use of the courts—in one body. It seemed to me at the time rather odd that, south of the border, there was this division of functions, which gave rise to uncertainty in my mind as to exactly why it was necessary for there to be a separate prosecution system at all in the hands of the Revenue or HM Customs.
So, from a rather unlikely quarter, I admire what is being done administratively and entirely approve of the Minister’s suggestion that it should now be endorsed in legislation. I am sure that this is a good measure to promote efficiency.
Lord Beecham
I must begin by apologising to the noble and learned Lord. I had not noticed that he was here and obviously intended to speak; I apologise for that.
As I said, try as I might—and I certainly tried—I cannot find anything much to object to in the 19 pages of the order or, indeed, the 134 amendments embodied in it. The principle is clearly right and it is sensible to combine the two positions. However, although this does not quite fall within the Minister’s brief, there are still questions to be asked about the operation of the service as a whole, particularly in relation to staffing.
Of course we are only talking about part of HMRC for the purposes of the order, but within HMRC there have been significant staff reductions. To be precise, 1,697 staff left in 2012-13. That forms part of a significant reduction in funding of HMRC amounting to about £2 billion, or 16.5%, by 2015. The Chancellor’s reinvestment, as it were, of £154 million, which was announced with a flourish a couple of years ago, will not make much of an impact on that massive cut.
The question arises, therefore, about the implications for staffing on what had been the HMRC function. Will the staff be protected, or will there be reductions? The record of HMRC in recovering moneys is clearly not very good. The Public Accounts Committee criticised it for collecting more than £1 billion a year less in December 2012 than it would have done, had it had the relevant staff.
Another question in relation to staffing is: will those who will be employed in the completely unified structure be paid comparably to those with whom they will no doubt be locking horns in the private sector? For that matter, is there much of a two-way flow between the department as it is now constituted and the private sector? I am not talking about the prosecution side thus far, as far as I am aware, but concerns have been expressed about people coming to work for the Inland Revenue from the private sector and then going back to the private sector and so on. I am not asking the Minister to answer this today, but it would be helpful if he would let us know the position in relation to movement inward and outward of staffing, particularly on the Inland Revenue side.
One of the concerns raised—I do not think with any great force in the consultation—was about the need to maintain within the prosecution side expertise of Inland Revenue matters. The Government seem to be satisfied on that, and I am not challenging that assertion, but it underlines the need to keep an eye on matters. No doubt the Government will be reviewing the situation as it progresses.
A further point relates to the third arm of prosecutions in this country, which is the Serious Fraud Office, which comes under the aegis of the Attorney-General and is separate from the DPP and HMRC, which we are now discussing. Given the somewhat challenging history of the SFO in recent years, I wonder whether it might be opportune at some time to consider a further merger between that department and the structure that we are formally approving today. I am not suggesting that the Minister can give an immediate response to that, but it is something that his colleagues could look into. In principle, it might seem sensible to have a seamless prosecution service dealing with serious fraud and tax fraud and the other matters that come under the direct surveillance of the DPP.
Having said that, we certainly do not object to this order and wish the fully combined departments well in their endeavours on behalf of the public and the taxpayer.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for bringing to the debate his experience from Scotland and for endorsing the desirability of this move from that vantage point. As well as making certain economies, we think that it will prevent potential demarcation disputes of the sort to which he referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, as ever, probes slightly beyond the scope of the statutory instrument, as I am sure he would be the first to accept. On the question of staffing and training, there is perhaps one aspect with which I can help the Committee. The legislation removes the barriers to the staff of the CPS and the staff of the RCPO from working on mixed duties.
The question of training is relevant. The HMRC prosecution work will remain for the immediate future within the CPS central fraud division, which prosecutes cases nationally. Expertise already exists within the division and the new staff are trained internally. Where any HMRC work is to be devolved, this will be managed carefully and appropriate training and support will be provided.
I am given to understand that RCPO is entirely separate from HMRC, and there have been no staff reductions as a direct result of the merger. I anticipate that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, was talking of staff reductions more generally, but I can confirm that, in so far as the issue of the statutory instrument is concerned, there are no such reductions.
As always, I will take back his remarks and observations generally about the Serious Fraud Office and whether or not further consolidations might be made with profit, as well as his observations generally about staffing and the involvement of the private sector. I am grateful for those contributions.
We submit that the draft order is a modest but worthwhile measure. In effect, it will complete what was unfinished business and should enable improvements and efficiency to take place. I commend it to the Committee.
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Order 2014.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have been asked by others involved in the ERA process how many more electoral statutory instruments there might be to consider. I am pleased to report that in the case of individual electoral registration the preparations for implementation in June are well advanced and it is anticipated that there will only be a handful of additional SIs during the remainder of this year.
The two short instruments before the Committee today will enable some fine-tuning, getting IER off to the very best possible start, which I am sure noble Lords will all welcome. Perhaps I should say, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will convey this to his colleagues on the Labour Benches, that some of them still seem to be very sceptical about the transition to IER, but so far this has been a remarkable success story, as the matching has been more complete than we had expected. That is part of the reason why we are continuing to adjust as we take this process along.
The draft order makes a small change to allow the start of confirmation matching to begin nearly a week earlier, from 16 June to 10 June. We hope and expect this to increase, from 64% to 83%, the proportion of unconfirmed electors receiving these invitations to register during July, rather than in the holiday month of August, which we expect to deliver a significantly better response rate. This is surely a common-sense piece of fine-tuning and well worth doing.
The second instrument, the draft regulations, will enable the testing of the IER digital service to continue for as long as may be necessary before it goes live, ensuring that the system will be able to do everything required of it once IER begins.
The Grand Committee will have observed that the order and regulations amend existing instruments, some of which were made only quite recently. Given that these are two more instruments, why do we need to make these now and add to the rather large ensemble that we seem to be creating?
To explain, the changes that we propose build on work carried out over the past year. The regulations now being amended to extend the testing period were made in March 2013 so that we could conduct the dry run of the process for confirming existing electors. In planning this, we had regard to the principle that the use of personal data for testing should be limited to a defined period. Last year’s regulations therefore provided for exchange of data to end around now.
In addition, not having a crystal ball, when those regulations were made we could not have known exactly what the testing schedule for 2014 would be, partly because the contracts with electoral management systems suppliers were yet to be concluded. However, a simple change to the dates in last year’s order will ensure thorough testing before we go live. When the dry run took place across Great Britain last summer, we got much better results than we had expected, indicating that at the transition to IER it should be possible to confirm an average of at least 78% of the electorate.
We were able to discuss with electoral administrators and the Electoral Commission options for making best use of the results of the live confirmation run. The solution emerged to allow the start of the transition to be brought forward a week from 16 to 10 June. The 2013 transitional provisions order was already before Parliament and to have withdrawn it to amend that one date would have caused uncertainty about all the other aspects of IER covered by the order, impacting everyone working on electoral administration across Britain.
In conclusion, these two short statutory instruments before the Grand Committee today will each, in their own way, play a further constructive part in the successful implementation of individual electoral registration in Britain. I hope that all parties will welcome this and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to be back here again to discuss these instruments with the noble Lord. To start off, the noble Lord made the point about some of my colleagues having worries about this, some of which I share. I worry about the speed of the transition and about what will happen if things go wrong. The Government have quite rightly put a lot of emphasis on voter fraud and on accuracy, but sometimes I feel that we put less emphasis on completeness.
As I have said many times to the noble Lord here and in the Chamber, on estimate around 6 million people live in our country who are not on the register but are eligible to be on it. I do not see much evidence that much is going on to get them on to the register. The Government should address that, and quickly. It is of equal priority to anything else that we are doing.
In general I support IER. Many noble Lords will be aware that I am a former member of the Electoral Commission, so I know about the work that has gone on in the Government and in the commission to get this right. However, I will keep pressing the noble Lord on the question of completeness, because it is important that all citizens are able to take part in our electoral process.
As the noble Lord says, the two instruments before us today bring forward minor changes, bringing IER into effect. The first order amends a previous order and brings forward the earliest date for the matching of existing electoral registers with data held by the DWP from 16 to 10 June. That is fine as far as it goes and I hope that the process will go smoothly.
I note in the order that publicity is to be undertaken by the Electoral Commission, which is welcome. I have some knowledge of the work that the commission is doing on that. However, I am not convinced that that is going to be enough. The Government will have to look at what else can be done. This is an enormous change that is taking place. I do not know what they can do; maybe the noble Lord can tell the Committee what other plans the Government have, or look at more plans. I certainly think that we should look at things such as specific funding to local authorities to do extra work. Noble Lords will know that EROs employed by local authorities do lots of the extra work, such as going door to door, and it may well be that additional funding is needed beyond what they normally receive. If at the end of this process there are fewer people on the register than there are now, it will be matter of much regret—in fact, we should aim to get many more people on the register. Perhaps the Minister could look at that.
How will the Cabinet Office monitor the completeness and accuracy of the electoral register throughout the process and after transition to IER? The second statutory instrument deals with the IER digital service. We have no issues with that, but I return to the general point that I made at the start of my contribution: with such a major change taking place, are we doing everything possible to ensure that those citizens who are not on the register now will be on the register in future?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I was conscious when I answered a question on this matter the other week of how long we have all been involved in this. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield asked me whether I had thought about the problems in Kirklees and I realised that it was the summer before last that I had been in Holmfirth talking to the Kirklees electoral registration officer. We have been at this, preparing for it, with local electoral registration officers and others for quite some time now.
I shared a lot of the concerns that others had at the outset and I have to say that I am impressed by the thoroughness shown by people at both the local and the national levels in working through to make sure that the transition is a success. We have in some ways the advantage of being able to learn from the Northern Irish experience, where there was a certain drop as one moved from household to individual registration, and we are working on several different fronts to deal with that. As the noble Lord will be aware, the biggest single reason provided by surveys for why people do not register is that they are not interested in politics and do not want to vote. That means that all of us in politics have to be out there arguing that it is in their interests both to register and to vote. National Voter Registration Day the week before last was an autonomous voluntary initiative, with which the Government were very happy to co-operate, to push that issue further up the agenda. We are co-operating with a range of voluntary organisations to get at particularly difficult, vulnerable groups who are less likely to register. We will continue to do that. We expect everyone to keep us up to the mark on this. We have allowed in the legislation for a final parliamentary vote to approve the transition after the next election, but so far, so very good and so much better than I expected, and I do not see it failing.
It was suggested that we might be more concerned about accuracy than about completeness. We are of course very concerned about completeness, which is why we are so pleased with the success of the data-matching exercise so far. We are providing additional funding to maximise registration; we have just provided an additional £3.6 million to be distributed to every electoral registration officer according to levels of electoral under-registration to help them with the costs of local activities for maximising registration. I remind the noble Lord that the boroughs that come up with the largest amount of under-registration are not those that have the strongest Labour vote or the highest poverty index. Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster come high among them, partly because there is such a rapid turnover in the population and people do not get round to registering while they are there.
We are providing funds to EROs because we understand that they are best placed to determine what local activity is most effective in maximising registration levels. We are not mandating how they make use of this funding; a great deal depends on local circumstances. I was shocked to be told some 15 months ago that in Wandsworth, for example, some 20,000-plus properties are now behind locked access, so that doing a door-to-door canvass has become a great deal more difficult. Those are not just council flats but the new blocks of flats along the Thames that sell for far too much money. So yes, we still face some difficulties but we are working extremely hard and providing extra resources and we are working with voluntary organisations to maximise registration and to make it as complete as possible. We hope to co-operate as actively as we can with all those concerned, including, of course, those within the Labour Party.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I hope that the noble Lord accepts that we all have a responsibility for getting people on the register, but the Government have a very special responsibility. Secondly, he has made this point before and I am getting a bit irritated: I have never, ever suggested that it is about getting Labour voters on to the register. It is about getting voters on to the register—I do not care who they vote for. The fact is that there are 6 million people in this country not on the register to vote. I want to get them on. That is what I am all about, as a member of the commission and as a Member of this House. I do not care if they are in Kensington and Chelsea and all vote Tory. That is absolutely fine. They should be on the register.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I apologise. I may indeed have been casting that comment at some of the noble Lord’s colleagues who have made that point very strongly to me. We all share an interest in this and we want to get as many people to vote as possible. We have no idea what they will do when they vote—whether they will vote for one party or another or even spoil their ballot papers—but rebuilding public commitment to democratic participation is a wider issue that we all face. I hope that we will all work together to ensure that this transition is entirely a success.
I am reminded to repeat, as I announced in the House during Questions the other week, that we have just awarded five organisations nearly £250,000 of funding to promote registration in their areas. So we are working on this and the transition is not yet over. But the noble Lord will know, as I do, that unfortunately some parts of the British public are not particularly engaged in either local or national politics, which is a problem that we all face.
Electoral Registration (Disclosure of Electoral Registers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electoral Registration (Disclosure of Electoral Registers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this order is to seek authority for the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board—the ECITB—to impose a levy on employers in its industry in 2015, which will relate to an assessment of employers’ payroll in the 2013-2014 financial year.
It is worth spending a little time elaborating on the reasons why there is a statutory training levy in the engineering construction industry. The associated engineering construction industries construct and maintain the power and utilities infrastructure essential to the UK economy. The industries include coal and gas power, offshore oil and gas, chemical and pharmaceuticals, nuclear power and renewable energy. The construction and maintenance requirements for these industries require a mobile, flexible and highly skilled workforce. It is the employers in these industries who have, since 1991, come together to support collective action through the levy to develop the workforce, manage risks and address skills needs.
Skills are central to creating a strong, sustainable and balanced economy. The Government are committed to ensuring that skills provision meets the needs of employers and learners. While the Government have a role in setting the framework for success, employers need to be in the driving seat if we are to equip the workforce with the skills that employers need. The ECITB has a central role in the training of the workforce and in supporting the industry to achieve sustainable growth. In doing this, the Government look to the ECITB to minimise bureaucracy and to ensure that support to employers is both relevant and accessible. The ECITB is employer led, and its role is to encourage the provision of adequate training of employees and prospective employees in its industry. It provides a wide range of services, including setting occupational standards, developing vocational qualifications and delivering apprenticeships, as well as paying direct grants to employers who carry out training to approved standards.
Let us briefly reflect on what the levy has achieved. In 2013, the ECITB supported more than 2,500 apprentices at various stages of their apprenticeship programmes. Completion rates for apprenticeships in the industry are more than 90%, significantly higher than the national average. In each of the past two years, the ECITB has supported more than 30,000 learners in training programmes, including apprenticeships, skills and technical training and management and professional programmes.
The ECITB is a non-departmental public body that operates under the provisions of the Industrial Training Act 1982. The Government review all public organisations to ensure that they are delivering an effective service that offers value for money. The ECITB is currently being reviewed as part of this triennial review of industrial training boards. The review will report by the end of this summer.
The majority of employers in the engineering construction industry continue to support a statutory framework for training. The ECITB is a model of the successful application of such a framework, and the order that we are considering today will enable these statutory levy arrangements to continue. I welcome this order as evidence that employers in the engineering construction industry want to continue to invest in the skills of their workforce.
The Industrial Training Act permits the ECITB to raise a levy on employers so that the costs of training are shared more evenly among companies in the industry. This order gives effect to proposals submitted to us for a levy to be collected by the ECITB in 2015. The proposal involves the imposition of a levy in excess of 1% of payroll on some classes of employer. The Industrial Training Act requires such an order to be approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses.
The levy order can only be made if the following three conditions are satisfied: first, that the amount of levy is appropriate to meet the current skills requirements of the industry; secondly, that the proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training in the industry; and, thirdly, that the previous levy order received support from the majority of employers and the levy rates remain unchanged. I can confirm that my right honourable friend in the other place, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, is satisfied that these conditions have been met.
The Act also requires the ECITB to include proposals for exempting small employers from the levy. This order therefore provides that small firms will be exempt if their expenditure on payroll and sub-contract labour is below a certain threshold that the industry considers to be appropriate. I will come to the details of the thresholds in a moment. Those firms that are below the threshold and exempt from paying the levy are still able to benefit from grant and other support from the ECITB, and many of them indeed do so.
The ECITB does not propose to make any changes to its levy rates or small firms exemption thresholds for this levy order. The rate for site employees will remain at 1.5% of total payroll, plus net expenditure on sub-contract labour. Employers who spend £275,000 or less on site employees will not have to pay the levy. The rate in respect of off-site employees—often referred to as “head office” employees—is 0.18% of total payroll, plus net expenditure on sub-contract labour. Employers who spend £1 million or less in respect of off-site employees will not have to pay the levy. Of all the establishments that are considered to be leviable by ECITB, it is expected that around 35% will be exempted from paying the levy.
For the ECITB, the one-year proposal is expected to raise around £29 million in levy income. The Committee will note that the ECITB order covers a one-year period, whereas the Industrial Training Act requires that levy orders should normally cover a three-year period. However, a one-year levy order can be made if, first, it is made within two years of an earlier levy order for which the ECITB obtained employer support and, secondly, the levy rate is being kept the same. For this order, the ECITB will be relying on the consensus established for the 2012 order, which had the support of 59% of employers, who were likely to pay 69% of the levy. Notwithstanding that, the ECITB also undertook a consultation with the industry last year, which showed that 68% of employers, likely to pay 76% of the levy, supported the proposal for the levy to continue. The ECITB has proposed a one-year levy order, at the request of the industry, to retain the flexibility to review the levels of levy required to meet future demand. Next year, the ECITB levy order will cover a three-year period, which will be coterminous with the Construction Industry Training Board three-year levy cycle from 2015 onwards and therefore allow the ECITB to develop longer-term plans.
The Committee will know from previous debates that the ECITB exists because of the support that it receives from employers and employer interest groups in their sectors. As I indicated earlier, there is a firm belief that without the ECITB there would be a deterioration in the quantity and quality of training in the industry, leading to a deficiency in skills levels. This draft order will enable the ECITB to continue to carry out its vital training responsibilities. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, it is traditional to thank the Minister for his introductory remarks, and I do so most sincerely. I want to advance just a few points, which I hope that he will see as relevant. If he cannot answer them specifically today, he may do so by letter.
I agree that the aim should be to achieve a balanced economy, as the Minister has said, and I agree that, inevitably in today’s conditions, employers should be in the driving seat—without any shadow of a doubt. The third main point that he made in his introductory remarks was that we need the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, which is central to Britain’s manufacturing future. It is good to know that Ministers are looking in some detail at how the board operates.
Is it possible that the Minister could tell us how much in grant is being paid, to the latest date that may be available, by Her Majesty’s Government to the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board? What amount was paid in the two years previous to the current financial year?
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, broadly speaking, I, too, welcome the statutory instrument. I thank the Minister for his introduction. I thank my noble friend Lord Jones for, as usual, giving us a historical analysis and some context for ITBs. I was around at the time, but I must admit that I could not remember all that detail about the wholesale slaughter of the industrial training boards.
Lord Jones
I hope my noble friend will allow me to say that the one omission I made in my boring remarks was that I was the opposition spokesman on these matters at that time.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
That accounts for it—it concentrated his mind wonderfully.
It was a helpful introduction by the Minister and I thank him for giving us some of the statistics. I was going to ask him about the number of apprenticeships and he gave us that figure, together with completions. Perhaps he could disaggregate that figure a bit further: how many apprenticeships were there in the 16 to 18 age group, and in the 19 to 24 age group? How many high-level apprenticeships were there?
Also, how many apprenticeships are there in this sector in public procurement contracts? I am sure that the Minister remembers the many occasions on which I have berated the Government for their failure to insist on a compulsory requirement for apprenticeships in public procurement contracts. It would be interesting to know how many apprenticeships in this sector are involved with public procurement contracts.
There is one other aspect of the construction industry that is still a matter of concern. The thresholds are based on the number of employees, but, unfortunately, it is still a well known practice in the construction industry—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
There is a Division in the House. The Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, to continue, I was making the point that it was interesting to hear the Minister talking about threshold firms. One of the continuing problems with the construction industry, as I was saying, is still the problem of bogus self-employment, especially on large sites where it makes a difference. I know, for instance, that there are some more enlightened managers of some of the large projects who have been trying to encourage companies not to engage in this and, as they should do, to register people for PAYE who are in fact continuously being employed; this would obviously count towards the threshold for the training levy. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister has any views on that and whether he agrees with me that this is a continuing problem.
With those questions and that slight reservation, I welcome the order.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Jones, for their contributions to this afternoon’s debate. I would like to address several questions that were raised and, if I may, start with the noble Lord, Lord Jones, who asked how much was paid by the Government in grant to the ECITB. I can reassure him that the funding for the ECITB is raised from the employer levy, so the ECITB does not receive any grant-in-aid funding from the Government. However, all funds are accountable to Parliament, which might give some further reassurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, also raised the history of ITBs and the background to the closure of the ITBs back in the 1980s. It is nice for me to know that he thought that I might have been too young in the 1980s to understand, or to have been around for, the levy system, but it happens that I was employed by a major multinational textiles firm at the time and was working in human resources. I remember very clearly working with my superior to monitor and fill in the levy forms, which were pretty extensive, so I have some experience of that.
Bringing us forward to the modern day, I should say that the training boards continue with the support of employers, and the Government do not want to impose levies on industry but are responsive to employers who can benefit from such arrangements. That is the case for construction and engineering construction, which have mobile and flexible workforces. Who knows, other industries by sector may approach the Government for a similar regime. There are none so far, but the noble Lord makes a good point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, raised the issue of how the ECITB is monitored. The Minister in the other place has an annual meeting to review the performance of each ITB. The performance and accounts are for public record and are published annually. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills appoints all the board members, and Government officials attend all the board meetings regularly to review performance with the boards.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about small businesses, with a particular focus on SMEs. It is very much a feature of the industry that the majority of employers are larger. I am happy to have a discussion with the noble Lord outside about my views about how small businesses are progressing.
On apprentices, the noble Lord may well know that we have managed to find 1.5 million apprenticeships since 2010. The noble Lord, Lord Young, also asked about apprenticeships and how many in the 16 to 18 year-old and 19 to 25 year-old bracket were involved in public procurement contracts. Although we do not have a breakdown of the numbers by age group or in public procurement contracts to hand, the nature of the engineering industry is likely to mean that the majority of apprentices will be aged 19 or over. I will certainly write to the noble Lord with any concrete figures that we can find to enlighten him.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked who chairs the ECITB and who its CEO is. It is nice to be able to name names for once. The board is chaired and led by Andrew Collinson, who has extensive experience in the engineering construction industry, and the chief executive is David Edwards. The key feature of such boards is that they are employer led, and all the board members have experience of the industry and can speak on behalf of employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the issue of bogus self-employment, to paraphrase his question. That is an issue in the construction industry. The orders cover not just PAYE but labour-only contracts. I agree that that matter needs further consideration, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that point.
The proposal before the Committee relates to the engineering construction industry, and it continues to be the collective view of employers in the industry that training should be funded through a statutory levy system in order to secure a sufficient pool of skilled labour. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Before the noble Viscount sits down, I meant to ask this question during my contribution—I apologise to him. Were the figures he cited of 2,500 apprenticeships and 30,000 learners an increase on previous years? If he does not have the answer, obviously I understand.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It may be appropriate for me to help the noble Lord by writing to him, but this might also be a moment to explain that the ECITB supports about 2,000 apprenticeships every year. I think I need to give a more precise and concise answer about the year-on-year figures, which I will endeavour to do.
National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I shall also speak to the National Minimum Wage (Variation of Financial Penalty) Regulations 2014.
The purpose of these proposals is, first, to clarify that work experience opportunities offered to young people as part of traineeships, helping them to compete in the labour market, are not subject to national minimum wage requirements—this reflects the situation with other government programmes—and, secondly, to take a tougher approach on employers who do not pay their workers the minimum wage that they are legally entitled to by increasing the financial penalty that employers have to pay.
First, let me turn to traineeships. The Government are committed to tackling youth unemployment. Central to this is equipping young people with the skills that employers need. Employers tell us consistently that young people often lack the right skills, attitudes and experience when they apply for an apprenticeship or other job. Some 29% of employers say that experience is “critical” when recruiting, and a further 45% say that it is “significant”.
The traineeship programme was introduced in August 2013 to address this problem in England. Traineeships in England are a training programme that includes work experience. Lasting a maximum of six months, the programme has three core elements: work preparation training; English and maths for those without a good GCSE standard in these subjects; and a high-quality work experience placement with an employer. Traineeships unlock the sometimes hidden potential of young people who are motivated to work but unable to get on the first rung of the ladder because they lack basic skills and are not yet ready for work. Traineeships are there for these young people to equip them with the life skills and confidence that they need to make that vital first step into sustainable employment.
Over 500 training organisations have indicated that they will deliver traineeships in the first year of the programme, and many employers are already on board, including household names such as Virgin Media and Siemens. Many smaller employers have been engaged locally by training providers. We expect the programme to grow over time, helping more and more young people to get jobs, but we rely on employers offering work experience opportunities to make this possible.
Exemptions from the minimum wage for participants in government schemes or programmes with work experience, such as traineeships, are commonplace in minimum wage legislation. The Government consider that traineeships are covered by an existing exemption. However, given that there are a number of government programmes with work experience to which different exemptions apply, we are pursuing a bespoke exemption that specifically names and describes traineeships in the regulations, for the avoidance of any doubt that any work undertaken as part of a traineeship is exempt from the national minimum wage.
I will now turn to the second reason that noble Lords are here today in Committee. The Government continue to be committed to increasing compliance with minimum wage legislation and effective enforcement of the law. Everyone who is entitled to the minimum wage should receive it. The Government actively target employers who disregard their responsibilities and we investigate any complaints made against them. We will not hesitate to pursue civil and criminal proceedings where necessary.
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs began enforcing the minimum wage in April 1999. Since then, HMRC has identified more than £45 million in arrears for over 200,000 workers during more than 65,000 employer interventions. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs follows up every single complaint from a worker made through the free pay and work rights helpline. This commitment is at the core of minimum wage enforcement.
Our compliance and enforcement action is making an impact. In 2012-13, HMRC identified £3.9 million in wage arrears for over 26,000 workers. This is a 33% increase in the number of workers that the Government were able to help in 2012-13 and a 26% increase in arrears identified compared to 2009-10. Noble Lords will know how vital the minimum wage is for low-paid workers, and the Government are actively keeping our compliance and enforcement strategy under review. Our approach will continue to be informed by intelligence and data, where we ensure that we make the best use of all the tools and resources at our disposal.
Employers have a responsibility to ensure that workers receive the minimum wage that they are legally entitled to and should be well aware of the different rates for the national minimum wage depending on the circumstances of their workers. If employers are unsure, they should call the pay and work rights helpline for information.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Leckie, for his useful introduction—if I may call it that. Looking at the Explanatory Memorandum to the National Minimum Wage (Variation of Financial Penalty) Regulations, I think that it appears to the reader here in Grand Committee to be a helpful, positive approach.
I welcome a tougher approach—that may be quoted—and the aim of skilling the young unemployed must be welcomed. I note that on this matter he mentioned England but, perhaps understandably, he did not venture to mention Wales. Is he able to give any information when he replies to the Committee as to what is happening in Wales on this matter?
It is also worth welcoming the aim of increasing compliance, which will necessarily involve instituting criminal proceedings. We heard in the Committee just now a very welcome commitment to the national minimum wage itself, which is a foundation statement when bringing in legislation such as this to your Lordships’ House. However, I recollect that in another place, when the national minimum wage was proposed by the Government of Mr Tony Blair, the opposition to it was somewhat lengthy and rather loud. It is good to hear from Her Majesty’s Government now a different tone of voice and a very obviously sincere commitment from the Minister.
With reference to the legislative background, we can only give three cheers to the phrase in the Explanatory Memorandum which states that,
“workers are entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage which is specified as one of four hourly rates”.
Also, paragraph 4.2 states that,
“the officer may serve a notice of underpayment requiring the employer to pay arrears to the worker or workers named in the notice”.
We can only imagine the difficulties of young people who are getting a miserable wage by law—some are not getting even that—and trying to make their way in a very difficult climate. Her Majesty’s Government should not lose sight of that dreadful situation across the nation today.
The Explanatory Memorandum also makes clear that there will be a requirement on,
“the employer to pay a financial penalty to the Secretary of State within 28 days of service of the notice”.
That has to be welcome, but I have questions concerning the policing that aims to prevent underpayment. Is the Minister able to tell us how many people make up that specific unit in HMRC’s enforcement section? If the work of the Government is to be done effectively, one hopes that that specific arm of government is adequately staffed. Often the suspicion is that HMRC is not adequately staffed, and it would be reassuring to hear what the numbers are.
Secondly, is the Minister able to tell us the total amount of fines for the latest available year? What was the largest fine imposed? Is he able to throw any light on that large fine, such as the details of the company? Is he able to enlarge on the answer, should he have it available to him?
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction of these statutory instruments. I will deal with the traineeships first.
When reading the Explanatory Note, I noticed that the traineeships do not get any pay, or if they do it will be up to the employer; nor is there any requirement to pay travel expenses or lunch et cetera. I wonder how much the travel expenses—never mind the lack of pay—act as a deterrent to young people taking up these traineeships.
Obviously, we welcome anything that makes young people more employment ready. There was a reference to English and maths, but I am always surprised these days when I do not see any reference to IT. That is now such a key part of any young person’s employment capabilities that I would have thought it would have been in the mix.
It was also interesting to hear from the Minister that 500 training organisations have agreed to deliver these traineeships. As we know from experience, some of the apprenticeship training that was being delivered lacked quality and the Government had to take action. Bearing that in mind—it is not only this Government who have suffered, as we also had some difficult experiences—I think that it really emphasises the need to ensure that there is a monitoring process to ensure that we are getting value for money and a quality training process.
On minimum wage compliance, there have been lots of announcements by the Government. I certainly welcome the number of probing questions asked by my noble friend. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s answers. The Government have been saying over a period of time that they are going to “name and shame” those firms. It might act as an extra deterrent if they did so. Like my noble friend Lord Jones, I welcome the Government’s espousal of the minimum wage. He is absolutely right to remind us of the dire predictions that were made at the time about the terrible effect that it was going to have and the millions of jobs that were going to be lost—not taking into account the impact on millions of workers who were being paid, in some of the worst examples, £1 an hour.
I am glad that the Government are now fully in favour of the minimum wage, although not every Conservative Member of Parliament seems to be—indeed, some of them have put down Motions calling for small firms to be exempted from paying it. I would welcome some assurance that the Government will not be going down any such road. Given their previous strange decision regarding their magnificent bargain offer to employees to get rid of their employment rights in return for shares, I wonder what take-up there has been on that. It was almost like buy one get one free—if you believe in that, clearly you also believe in a free lunch.
To return to this statutory instrument, I found myself a bit confused by all the statistics being given by the Minister. I think I have this right: he talked about there being £45 million of arrears; I was not sure how many complaints that had resulted from. I could not quite comprehend whether or not these figures were going down as a result of the enforcement. That is what we want to see. I was pleased to hear the Minister introduce the pay and work rights helpline. It seems to be carrying out its function.
We welcome the higher penalties, although we probably think that they should be even higher still because there still seems to be a significant number of employers that believe they can get away with not paying the minimum wage, which is a real disgrace. The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred to getting a 50% reduction if you pay what you should have been paying. I suppose that I can see some logic in that if it gets them to pay up, but I would like some assurance that, if the same employer were to commit this offence again, we would not allow them to have a second chance of getting a 50% reduction. Would that apply if there were a repeat offence?
To summarise, we generally welcome this measure. I would be interested to know why we have not yet had any examples of the Government actually naming and shaming employers, which might act as a further deterrent, and I would like some clarification on how many cases of enforcement there have actually been over the period that this has been taking place.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank noble Lords for their contributions during this very brief debate and I hope to address all the points that were raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, raised important points about young people. It is true that there is much more work to be done. Although the deterioration of the labour market situation for young people predates the recession and this Government and the recession hit the employment rates among young people particularly hard—I think that everybody is aware of that—there are signs of recent improvements in the statistics.
In the three months to November 2013, there were 920,000 unemployed young people. While that figure was down 39,000 both over the quarter and over the year, that number illustrates how much work we need to do and must do. However, around a third of young people were in full-time education. The unemployment rate for this group was 18.1% in the three months to November 2013—young people make up around 9% of the total population. The number of young people on the claimant count has fallen for 19 consecutive months and was 315,000 in December 2013. In addition, the number of young people who have been claiming JSA for more than 12 months is down by around 25% over the year.
Youth unemployment remains lower than after past recessions: for example, 9% of 16 to 24 year-olds have left full-time education and are workless, against 12% back in 1993 and 14% in 1984. I thought that it might be helpful to produce some context for this discussion but at the same time reiterate how much more work there is to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, referred to Wales—a very important country and I say so as a Scot. I should clarify that the national minimum wage is a reserved matter. Changes to the penalties regime will cover the United Kingdom. Traineeships will be available only in England and the bespoke exemption will apply only in England. Therefore, in effect, it is not applicable in Wales and there will be no impact there.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of policing to prevent underpayment and asked how many people made up the enforcement unit within HMRC. That is a very specific question on which I will be very happy to write to him to give the figures.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the issue of pay for traineeships. As he said, the general view is that traineeships would not be paid; there is no obligation for employers to pay. It is very much hoped that all employers will see fit to pay for meals and for some transport, but there is no obligation to pay them. He also mentioned skills in maths and English. As he knows, we are progressing with those skills for those people who do not have the necessary GCSEs.
On IT, the noble Lord made a very good point. I think that it is fair to say—and it is a bit of a generalisation, I know—that most young people are pretty savvy when it comes to IT, but it is noted that the noble Lord has raised that issue. It is not part of the programme, but it is noted and I shall take it away.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I agree with the Minister that they are savvy in some ways. Most of them have PhDs in social networking, though not necessarily in the dangers and risks. I am interested in IT skills as they would apply to enhancing their employment prospects, which is a slightly different sector.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I fully accept that point. I shall endeavour to write to the noble Lord with some information on that if we have it, looking specifically at the traineeships and IT.
The noble Lord asked whether the 50% reduction in penalties applied if someone was a repeat offender. The answer is yes. It applies only to the financial penalty. Just to be clear, the employer has to pay back the full arrears to employees within 14 days for the 50% reduction to be applicable.
The noble Lord raised an important point about quality and asked how we would ensure the quality of the traineeships. We have put in place a number of measures to ensure that the work experience is a high-quality learning experience for each young person. Only providers who are graded good or outstanding by Ofsted are eligible to deliver traineeships. The Department for Education has published guidance on what is required to ensure that the work experience is of good quality. Providers are responsible for actively monitoring the work experience placement and working with employers to ensure that it meets each individual’s needs. Providers are given funding to support them to do this, and we have commissioned an external evaluation of traineeships starting from the first year. My department, BIS, is funding the Education and Training Foundation to deliver a traineeship support programme for providers delivering traineeships, focused on ensuring that they are high-quality programmes. I hope that gives some reassurance to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, raised the matter of naming and shaming. I can assure him that that is very much on our radar. He will be aware that the revised national minimum wage naming and shaming scheme came into effect on 1 October 2013. As I said earlier, the new rules are part of government efforts to toughen up enforcement of the national minimum wage and to increase compliance. By naming and shaming employers, it is hoped that our publicity will be an additional deterrent to employers who would otherwise be tempted not to pay the national minimum wage. This is on top of financial penalties, to which I just referred, which employers already face if they fail to pay the national minimum wage. As for the timing—which was the specific question from the noble Lord—I cannot give a precise date, but we are likely to start naming employers very soon.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about the total amount of finance available for enforcement in the latest year available. HMRC enforces the national minimum wage on behalf of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The national minimum wage enforcement budget allocation for 2013-14 is £8.3 million.
The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked a question as to what financial support is available to young people on traineeships. I mentioned earlier that employers are not required to pay young people, but I failed to mention that young people on traineeships will be undertaking educational training and will be able to apply to existing programmes of financial support aimed at learners, including the £180 million bursary fund for those aged 16 up to 19 and the discretionary learning support fund for those aged 19 up to 24. I hope that gives a fuller answer than my previous one.
I believe that I have covered all the questions raised, but I would like to reiterate, in conclusion—
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I asked the Minister for some clarification on the figures that he quoted for HMRC—the amount that was in arrears—so that I could get a clearer picture of how well HMRC is succeeding in tackling this problem. He did not really return to that. There were two figures that I wrote down: one was £45 million in arrears, and I am not quite sure what period of time that related to; the other figure he quoted was something like £3.9 million in wage arrears. I just could not make sense of those; that might be my fault rather than his, so that is why I asked for clarification.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is right to ask for clarification, not to the extent that we do not have the figures. The best thing to do would be for me to write to the noble Lord with the figures. There is a tabulation in front of me and I think it is better to give those specific figures, and to copy in any noble Lords here today who might also like to see them.
I would like to conclude by reiterating the value of the government-funded traineeships programme in England, which is providing young people with the skills and experience they so vitally need to take their first step into the labour market. Traineeships are a central pillar in this Government’s commitment to tackling youth unemployment. These regulations simply clarify the fact that employers offering work experience opportunities to young people as part of a traineeship on their journey towards employment will not be required to pay the national minimum wage, as is the case with other government programmes that include work experience. These regulations will now be debated in the other place in the charge of my honourable friend Jenny Willot MP.
National Minimum Wage (Variation of Financial Penalty) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Minimum Wage (Variation of Financial Penalty) Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Public Bodies (Abolition of the National Consumer Council and Transfer of the Office of Fair Trading’s Functions in relation to Estate Agents etc) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Bodies (Abolition of the National Consumer Council and Transfer of the Office of Fair Trading’s Functions in relation to Estate Agents etc) Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, with much to cover I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I set out the prospective changes in some detail.
The purpose of this order is: first, to abolish the National Consumer Council and transfer its relevant functions to Citizens Advice, Citizens Advice Scotland and the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland; secondly, to transfer the Office of Fair Trading’s estate agency functions to the Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Powys Trading Standards; and, finally, to transfer residual OFT functions relating to its former consumer advice scheme to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland. The scheme itself was transferred to the citizens advice services on 1 April 2012.
This order will complete a programme of consumer landscape improvements that the Government first embarked upon in 2011. The National Audit Office report Protecting Consumers, published in June 2011, and the Public Accounts Committee report on the same issue both highlighted the fact that the existing consumer landscape was confusing, duplicative and therefore inefficient. To address that, in April 2012, following consultation, the Government announced a series of reforms to the landscape of consumer bodies. Over the past two years, we have streamlined the landscape of Government-funded consumer organisations to make it easier for consumers to understand where they need to go to get help. The reforms will deliver a better deal overall for consumers by making it clearer who is responsible for what and by facilitating better co-ordination between consumer bodies and enforcers.
The improvements that we have made so far include: focusing the new Competition and Markets Authority, which will replace the Office of Fair Trading from 1 April, on identifying problem markets and developing effective solutions to competition issues; establishing the National Trading Standards Board and Trading Standards Scotland in 2012 to prioritise national and cross-local authority boundary consumer enforcement; moving responsibility for consumer-facing education and general consumer advocacy to Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland; moving responsibility for approval of consumer codes to the Trading Standards Institute; and launching Consumer Futures in May 2013 to represent consumer interests in gas, electricity, postal services and—in Scotland—water services. These organisations work together as part of the Consumer Protection Partnership—the CPP—to collectively identify issues causing consumer detriment, and agree priorities for collaborative action.
Let me turn now to the specifics of this order. The order will abolish the National Consumer Council and transfer relevant functions to the umbrella bodies Citizens Advice, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. The function will be based in the head offices of Citizens Advice, not within the local bureaux on our high streets. This change will bring together the technical expertise of Consumer Futures with evidence from consumers across the country from the citizens advice service bureaux and the national consumer advice helpline. This combination of technical expertise and intelligence gathering will enable the Citizens Advice service to act as a robust advocate for consumers, influencing policy development on general issues and on the complex energy and postal services markets. Careful analysis of emerging trends in consumer complaints will enable Citizens Advice to speak out on behalf of consumers on areas of particular concern and to lobby policymakers to improve consumer welfare.
Alongside the Consumer Futures function, anyone needing impartial help or advice on a consumer issue will, as now, be able to phone the national helpline, contact their local bureau or use the interactive help on the Citizens Advice web pages. This means that the customer journey for the consumer who has a complaint is clear and simple.
Complaints data will not be the only intelligence-gathering mechanism available to the Citizens Advice service. It will also receive the National Consumer Council’s information-requesting powers, a move overwhelmingly supported by respondents to the government consultation in 2011. Although those powers are not used regularly, the threat of their use makes it easier to obtain key information necessary for effective advocacy. I will elaborate on this point for a moment, if I may. When this order was debated in the other place, there was some concern that the Government were intending to curb Citizens Advice’s access to those information-gathering powers. I stress that the Government have no plans whatever to diminish the ability of the Citizens Advice service to fulfil the role of consumer advocate by restricting that essential power.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I declare one current interest and one past interest: I am vice-president of the Trading Standards Institute, and I was chair of the National Consumer Council and Consumer Focus.
This is the last block of changes that the Government are introducing in this field. While I will end up by wishing the organisations and their staff well in trying to work this out, I cannot but express regret and sadness at what has happened and some anxieties about the future. Not only will this order finally abolish the good work that has been done for the past 50 years by the National Consumer Council, founded by the late Lord Young of Dartington, but it reflects a failure by the Government—actually, successive Governments—in achieving just what the Minister started out by saying they were trying to achieve: namely, clarity for consumers, a lack of confusion and a lack of overlap. Even this last piece of the jigsaw transfers powers from two organisations to five, with another two, the National Trading Standards Board and the CPP, also involved, which does not exactly improve understanding and overlap.
When the NCC, Energywatch and Postwatch came together following the 2007 Act, it was a partial achievement of what the Labour Party had promised in the 2005 manifesto, with which I think my noble friend was very familiar. The original intention was to bring together all statutorily based bodies with an interest in representing the consumer in the policy-making and enforcement process. Actually, it never happened quite that way, due at that stage partly to interdepartmental problems, in that the Ministry of Transport refused to allow what is now Passenger Focus to move in, Defra batted a draw and, although there was a way of getting the Consumer Council for Water in, that was never actually triggered. The relationships with the panels that were set up in Ofcom and the then Financial Services Agency never fully materialised, although that is also reflected in the legislation.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the National Trading Standards Board, to which reference has been made several times today. I will confine my remarks primarily to the transfer of functions in respect of estate agents from the Office of Fair Trading, and will comment on the process and some of the points that my noble friend Lord Whitty has just made.
Powys County Council was selected following due process, a tendering process in which a number of other local authorities—I cannot remember whether it was five or six—had made expressions of interest and put forward detailed tendering documents. Powys County Council was awarded the contract on the basis of the strength of its bid and the perceived view that it was best able to deliver the service most effectively.
It may seem strange that a single local authority—I think it matters not whether that authority is in Wales or England—is given a national function in this way, but the National Trading Standards Board does that in respect of a number of national functions. The Minister referred to the Illegal Money Lending Team for England. That service is provided through Birmingham City Council and the arrangement works extremely well. There is a similar arrangement for the Illegal Money Lending Team in Wales. Another example is the National Trading Standards eCrime Centre, which is provided by North Yorkshire County Council. These are national functions, nationally available, provided throughout the country but delivered through a single local authority. That is the arrangement that is being followed in this case.
The benefit of this structure is that while individual local authorities are leading on these issues, they are part of a national network and structure. They are able to work with local authorities around the country on the development of intelligence. A national intelligence unit for trading standards, funded by the National Trading Standards Board, is provided through Suffolk County Council. So it is part of a national network.
My noble friend Lord Whitty spoke eloquently about the way in which the Government have simplified and introduced clarity to the arrangements for trading standards and consumer protection. Of course, greater clarity and transparency would have been provided had the Government looked across legislation and considered the licensing of letting agents, which is also in progress at the moment, and seen a potential synergy between locating the licensing of letting agents with the licensing of estate agents, given that letting agents and estate agents are often effectively the same individuals. No doubt the Government’s desire for clarity and simplification will mean that these issues will be reviewed in due course.
No doubt the Minister will give us a clear assurance on this, but my understanding is that all the resources that were available to the Office of Fair Trading for this estate agency licensing work have indeed been transferred to the National Trading Standards Board, and that money will be passed through to Powys County Council to do this work. My noble friend commented on the difficult financial circumstances that most trading standards departments around the country are facing. The average reduction in trading standards budgets appears to be approaching 40%.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, when the Division intervened, I was simply making the point that trading standards departments around the country have been facing substantial reductions in their budgets over the past few years. It is estimated that, overall, trading standards funding from individual local authorities will, on average, have diminished by 40% by 2015, which is a substantial change. The only assurance that I can give my noble friend Lord Whitty is that the resources for the estate agency function will be ring-fenced.
The only other point that I wish to make is that the service that will be provided through Powys County Council will, however, be branded as a national trading standards function. It will quite clearly be a national function supporting estate agent regulation throughout England and Wales.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I share the views of my noble friend Lord Whitty that this is actually a sad day. I am sorry that the Minister did not pay tribute to the extraordinary work that the NCC has done over its life. It has been seen as that third part of civil society. There have always been the employers and the trade unions, represented quite rightly by their bodies; a third body representing consumers has been really important for making markets work, being a big national player along with the TUC and the CBI. It is a great sadness to lose that, particularly—and I will come back to this—given the fragmentation that the Government have managed to put in its place. This was just about trying to get rid of a certain number of quangos; we know that that is what it was. There was a rush into it and very little understanding of what the NCC actually did because, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, there was very little duplication. I should confess—or rather boast—that I was a member of the NCC council and there was very little duplication between what we were doing and what Citizens Advice was doing. Citizens Advice deals with people coming through the door; we were trying to think of problems five, 10 or sometimes 15 years ahead.
Sadly, we lost the argument by just 12 votes at the time that the Public Bodies Bill went through the House, and my guess is that, having dealt with the complexity of transferring those functions, BIS may have belatedly recognised the force of our arguments. There are problems with Citizens Advice taking over the work of the NCC. At the moment, it can answer only 45% of its telephone calls and we have heard from my noble friend about the cuts to the advice service, so there are problems there. However, we recognise that the decision has been taken and we therefore need, or want, whatever replaces the NCC to work as well as possible for the sake of consumers. That is the important criterion.
I have five questions ready to ask about the order, but before that, I have another question. Given the report on the pre-emption of Parliament by our own Constitution Committee—which noted, when the Public Bodies Act 2011 was merely a Bill, that a number of public bodies began to wind down their activities in anticipation of abolition—can the Minister confirm that no public money was spent on the abolition of the NCC and the transfer of functions prior to the relevant approval by Parliament?
On the order, there are five areas in which we seek either assurances or answers. One is on the transfer of Consumer Focus’s statutory information-gathering powers—which have already been mentioned—to Citizens Advice. There was an earlier debate here about whether those could be overused, and in fact our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee returned to that issue. My concern is different: it is the potential underuse of those powers by Citizens Advice. Given the increasing demand on it for its own advice services from very hard-pressed consumers, my concern is that it might take its eye off its longer-term policy role, which has been played hitherto by Consumer Focus. It was partly with that in mind, when the ERR Bill went through, that my noble friend and I argued at that stage that someone—I think we suggested the CMA—should have a sort of reserve power to ensure that sufficient attention was paid to this element of Citizens Advice’s work, given that its own programme and budget were laid down by its individual charitable trustees. Those trustees are not accountable to BIS or any other arm of government. Our question, therefore, is: what happens if Citizens Advice falls down on that part of consumer protection? Who would know? It would certainly not be the consumers: there is no accountability for this work to consumers. The letter that Vincent Cable wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, on 17 January, said:
“The Consumer Affairs Minister will hold…Citizens Advice…to account for effective delivery of these functions on behalf of consumers”.
I am not clear how that will happen. Will it be done simply by the terms of the grant? If so, how will the Minister hear consumers’ views and what action would she take if, for example, Citizens Advice failed to prioritise vulnerable consumers or the users of government-provided services? How would the Minister know and what would she do if she found any such problems?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank noble Lords for their valuable and detailed comments on an issue that I recognise holds some sensitivities in terms of these changes for certain members of the Committee. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his broad support and some reassurances on the estate agency part of the changes.
I start by paying tribute to the work and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, over many years and indeed decades. I listened with some care to his comments but he will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with much of his general analysis of the consumer landscape. We believe that these changes are beneficial. I shall start by addressing some of his overall comments, and I hope that that he will forgive me if I duplicate what has been said already.
He started by saying that the reform landscape and the changes set out under the order do not achieve the clarity that he had hoped for. We firmly believe that the reforms we are making are a great improvement. Consumers will have a single port of call for Government-funded information, advice and guidance. The Citizens Advice service will be well placed to use its expertise to direct its advocacy and speak up on behalf of consumers. I recognise that some of the detail of the order is complicated, but that is the nature of legislation. It is the outcome that is important.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, expressed sadness at the abolition of the NCC. I will say, if I have not said it in the past, that I personally recognise the great contribution that the National Consumer Council has made to consumer issues over the years, and the no small part that a number of noble Lords have played in contributing to that. I believe that I said this earlier, but the NCC’s strong track record of consumer advocacy was one of the key reasons for the body being folded into Consumer Focus when it was created by powers under the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007. The great track record of the NCC was enhanced and expanded when it joined with Energywatch and Postwatch to form Consumer Focus in 2008. It will be further enhanced when it joins the Citizens Advice service as a result of this order.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked how the consumer journey will work under the new arrangements. He cited the word “confusion” relating to other regulated issues. We believe that the consumer journey will not change significantly under these new arrangements. We are simply joining up the policy-making and regulatory oversight expertise of Consumer Futures with the existing consumer complaint-handling abilities of the Citizens Advice service. As a result of these changes, anyone needing impartial help or advice on a consumer issue, whether that is a general matter or on a regulated issue in a sector, will be able to phone the national helpline, contact their local bureau or use the interactive help on the Citizens Advice web pages.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, raised the issue of the failure, as he put it, to bring other related sectors within Consumer Futures. The order is more about better working and not simply about moving bodies around, which may have been the expression he used. Citizens Advice will work closely with other consumer panels, joining up on regulated issues of common interest and concern.
The noble Lord also raised an issue about the citizens advice bureaux and whether they had the expertise to deal with the work. I can reassure him that the Citizens Advice service is already fully engaged on policy and research across a very wide range of consumer issues. It has both the experience and expertise to provide a highly effective voice for consumers, and this capability will be bolstered by the expert staff transferring from Consumer Futures. The Citizens Advice service will benefit from its close connection to the citizens advice bureaux and its management of the new consumer advice helpline that is replacing Consumer Direct.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also raised the issue of the funding of the citizens advice bureaux, and stated that it had been cut. I refute that by saying that the Government have not cut Citizens Advice funding. In 2014-15 we will maintain the core grant funding to the Citizens Advice service, which is a combined total of £21.8 million, at a time when other public bodies are seeing their funding cut. That will ensure that the vital central services provided by the umbrella bodies to the bureaux network are maintained. Funding to the service to deliver advocacy on energy—
Lord Whitty
My Lords, my question was slightly different. It concerned the addition of what was the Consumer Focus function, particularly the function that was not funded by industry, which has been handed over to Citizens Advice. Has the amount of money that was previously spent by Consumer Focus on that area of its work prior to 2010 been reflected in a proportionate increase in the funding of Citizens Advice? My impression is that it has not, and that while the aggregate amount for Citizens Advice may have been maintained in difficult times, the full reflection of what was previously done elsewhere is not reflected in that total figure. It would be useful to have the figures.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Absolutely. I was going to say that I will be more than happy to write to the noble Lord to confirm the precise figures. I reiterate that it is not our intent to cut the funding. The funding to the service to deliver advocacy on energy and postal matters will be maintained as currently allocated to Consumer Futures, at £8.7 million, with an additional £220,000 allocated to the general Consumer Council for Northern Ireland to deliver postal advocacy. This funding will be recouped via the levy from the energy and postal industries.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also asked whether I would ensure that the lead local authority is properly resourced to undertake this work. This is to do with the estate agency functions. The baseline costs of policing the UK estate agency market will transfer, as he knows, from the OFT into the NTSB’s enforcement grant. This amount will be ring-fenced from the main portion of the grant to ensure that the full funding will be used for the purpose intended.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, spent some time speaking about Powys and the transfer of the OFT estate agency function. In thanking him for his support, I want to clarify—perhaps for the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—that we believe that the role of Powys is very important within the new national enforcement regime, and I re-emphasise the national element of that for the avoidance of doubt. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked why the Government were not harmonising letting agencies in addition to the changes that we are making to estate agents. The noble Baroness will be aware that letting agents are already subject to consumer protection legislation. The Government do not believe in excessive regulation. The amendment of the Estate Agents Act to include letting agents would lead to overregulation of the market, which would run a real risk of reducing supply in the rented sector, which in turn would drive up rents and reduce the choice for hard-working tenants.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am sorry that I was not clear. I absolutely understand that—I may not go along with it but I completely understand it. I asked about a different issue. At the moment, a redress scheme for estate agents has been approved by the OFT. Approval for that redress scheme will now go to Powys. I understand that. There will then be redress schemes for letting agents—I think they will be the same schemes, but that is neither here nor there. In order for a letting agent to be approved by the redress scheme, they will not be able to go to Powys to get a tick; I understand that they will have to go through the DCLG. That is the same issue mentioned earlier by my noble friend about two departments not quite co-operating. My question is not about the letting agents themselves but the approval of a redress scheme for letting agents. It is extraordinary that it is not being done in the same way as for estate agents.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I have listened carefully to the noble Baroness, and I believe that she is correct. She mentioned the DCLG, and I can say that the reforms will create a new requirement for letting agents to join an approved redress scheme. It will be implemented through the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, which she was very much a part of, with my good self. The order simply transfers existing enforcement arrangements from one body to another rather than creating a new redress scheme. I do not know whether that answers the noble Baroness’s question.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Indeed, a further exchange of letters would certainly clarify the matter.
The noble Baroness raised an important point about Citizens Advice being able to answer only about 45% of calls—to paraphrase her question. I am not clear where those figures come from because Citizens Advice is now reporting very high levels of satisfaction on the use of its national call line. Perhaps the noble Baroness can advise me on where she got those figures. They may, dare I say, be slightly outdated, but I would be very pleased to speak to her offline, as it were, about that.
The noble Baroness also raised the important issue of accountability relating to Powys County Council. She said that it is convoluted and unclear, but we believe that that is not true. Ultimately Powys County Council will be accountable to BIS, as I explained in my opening speech. As she knows, Powys will report to the National Trading Standards Board in its role as co-ordinator, and the NTSB is accountable to BIS. I am not entirely sure why she is concerned about that because we believe that there is actually quite a short direct reporting line to BIS. Again, I am extremely happy to speak to her outside this Room to clarify what I mean by that. At the same time, the noble Baroness raised the issue of Anglesey. I can confirm that Anglesey’s licensing committee will play no role in appeals against Powys’s warning and prohibition orders. These will be made first to the First-tier Tribunal.
The noble Baroness also asked how the Government will ensure that Citizens Advice will deliver on the work that it has been given and how its work will be monitored. We will hold annual performance reviews with the Citizens Advice service to ensure that the new arrangements are effective and that the successor bodies are delivering on behalf of consumers. We will also make a review of the full suite of statutory provisions within five years of the order coming into force.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of whether Section 24—in other words, the information-gathering powers—would be underused. I reassure her that Citizens Advice will have full access to these powers should it require them. She also asked when Powys and HMRC would receive the list of estate agents from the OFT. HMRC is already in an information-sharing agreement with the OFT as a supervisor under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. The order provides an information-sharing gateway for Powys that will come into force as soon as the order is made.
The noble Baroness also asked how the consumer will be represented in Europe. The CMA will be responsible for acting as the UK’s single liaison officer in ensuring compliance with the consumer protection co-operation regulation. It will forward individual enforcement actions to the NTSB unless they relate to problems where it takes the lead. However, Citizens Advice will continue to work closely with its European counterparts, as Consumer Focus does now.
I have given due regard to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s decision and comments. I hope that I have answered all the questions that were raised. If I have not—there were quite a few questions—I will be more than delighted to expand the letters that I have already committed to writing to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and any other Peer. The Government conclude that the order meets the requirements of the Act, and I commend it to the Committee.
Children: Competitive Sport
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Heyhoe Flint
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage younger children to participate in competitive sport.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to lead this debate because last month I was incensed to read that Surrey Rugby, part of the RFU, was changing the ethos and rules for children’s mini-rugby, age six to 11, meaning that teams need no longer play to win and that they must also be of mixed ability, not the strongest that keeps on winning. My blood pressure shot up rapidly and the scheme provoked wider anger in the game. Ex-England international player and board member at Esher Rugby Club Simon Halliday said:
“We are appalled and have withdrawn from all Surrey rugby competition. In sport there are winners and losers. As long as you don’t demean the loser, it’s straightforward”.
Chris McGovern, the chairman of Real Education, criticised the Surrey rules, saying:
“This is not in the interests of children. It will rob them of motivation and incentive, and does not prepare them for the real world … Children can learn from failure and they have to lose sometimes”.
Steve Grainger, the RFU’s development director, countered:
“If we are not meeting children’s needs and not presenting them with a format that suits them, we are not delivering to our customers”.
What a ghastly word—“customers”. This guidance applies to Surrey’s mini-festivals. Scores will be regularly reviewed and current RFU regulations state that:
“Matches must be brought to an end if … at Under 7s to Under 12s the try difference rises to more than six”.
An accompanying Daily Telegraph editorial headed “Must try less hard” stated that,
“misplaced egalitarianism risks denying non-academic children the valuable opportunity of excelling on the sports field”.
My comment is that youngsters, whether playing rugby or on their Xbox, thrive on competition. A game where no one wins is not much fun.
Sport England must hope that its massive government investment into sport will help youngsters to learn more about life’s battles if they strive to win and learn how to lose. Sport England stated to me:
“We know that many young people enjoy taking part in competitive sport, and that others are more comfortable simply taking part with a focus on personal challenge. We think that competition and realising talent are essential elements of a high quality grassroots sports sector”.
Sport England is investing up to £35.5 million between 2010 and 2015 in the Sainsbury’s School Games, delivered by the Youth Sport Trust. Some 70% of schools in England have signed up for them. There is thus a clear demand for organised, competitive sport. Sport England’s investment philosophy for primary school sports is:
“We want all children to have good physical literacy—able to run, throw, jump, with confidence, through PE at their primary school; to have a positive experience, and associate PE with fun and enjoyment and also to have exposure to a range of activities including competition”.
To emphasise the Government’s commitment to young children having an enhanced sporting experience, the Prime Minister announced just three weeks ago that the Government will extend primary school sport premium funding up to 2020. It was previously guaranteed until 2016. This premium provides £150 million a year for primary schools to enhance their provision of PE, physical activity and school sport. The funding is fully ring-fenced, with an average primary school receiving around £9,250 annually.
The Youth Sport Trust, an independent charity devoted to changing young people’s lives through sport, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, very much welcomes the Prime Minister’s announcement. It states that it believes that this investment has the potential to transform PE, sport and physical activity provision in our primary schools, and that it is crucial that schools are supported and encouraged to use sport premium funding to secure sustainable improvements to provision. The Youth Sport Trust believes that participation in competitive sport at school is a key part in any child’s sporting journey, building key life skills such as teamwork, determination and leadership. The trust also believes that any focus on competition should allow all young people to participate fully in PE and school sport, including those who are less inclined to take part in competitive activities.
Going forward, if the Government are committed to driving the take-up of competitive sport in schools, it is imperative that measures to promote this are articulated as part of a wider PE and school sport programme. I would be pleased to hear assurances from the Minister that this commitment is at the forefront of government thinking.
The FA has made sensible changes at youth level, most notably that season-long competitions have now been removed in favour of shorter-format trophy events providing several competitions throughout the season, capturing children’s imagination and preventing runaway winners. This still promotes the importance of winning and losing and allows the recognition of winners, but here is a message to Surrey Rugby: no reselection is imposed on youngsters’ teams that have the audacity to keep winning.
The ECB Cricket Foundation’s Chance to Shine schools programme, with government backing, has the overall aim of reintroducing cricket into state schools. It uses cricket as a catalyst for developmental issues like behaviour, attainment, teamwork, life skills and values. The ethos is simple: link cricket clubs to local primary and secondary schools, provide qualified coaches to deliver cricket sessions and matches in schools, train teachers and encourage children to come and play at cricket clubs, thus encouraging competition. Since 2005, more than 2 million children, including 1 million girls, have received coaching through the programme—a great achievement.
Kwik Cricket, another ECB grass-roots initiative, provides children of primary school age with a fun, inclusive and fast-paced introduction to the game of cricket. The main aim is to inspire children to play cricket through a national competition framework. Each summer, the largest structured primary school initiative in England and Wales gives children aged five to 11 at 10,000 schools the opportunity to play and learn cricket in a competitive but fun environment. There is even an ECB Ashes school challenge, a free interactive primary school resource that enables students to learn about cricket’s most famous series. Perhaps in future England’s school youngsters could beat Australia interactively, unlike in the recent real live men’s Ashes cricket series. The women’s cricket team is of course absolved of this little barb.
The DCMS Taking Part survey 2013 states:
“For 5-10 year olds, the most common way of participating in competitive sport was playing sport in their school in organised competitions”.
It is a well known fact that increasing physical activity in lessons, including competitive elements, from twice a week to daily is reported to have a significant effect on primary school pupils’ academic achievements in maths, reading and writing. The DCMS document Creating a Sporting Habit for Life: A New Youth Sport Strategy made clear that a key goal for the Government was to increase the number of young people participating in school sport, including building a lasting legacy of competitive sport in schools. Competitive sport was also included in the PE component of key stages 1 and 2 of the revised national curriculum in England for September 2013, which sets out the purpose of PE for younger children as:
“A high-quality physical education curriculum inspires all pupils to succeed and excel in competitive sport and other physically demanding activities”.
My right honourable friend the Minister for Sport, Helen Grant, stated in the other place:
“Competition can be great, but not everyone likes it. We want people to be active and to enjoy sport, which is why changes have been made to the national curriculum to provide a broad range of team and individual activities such as dance that will appeal to those who may be a little less competitive”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/13; col. 336.]
However, you try telling contestants in “Strictly Come Dancing” that dance is not a competitive art form, or even that cheerleading teams do not compete to be the best. The Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation, which is backed by the Government, found in its survey Changing the Game, for Girls that,
“it was not competition per se that girls say they dislike, but rather other people’s negative behaviour in competitive situations, including: cheating … fighting … arguing”.
I am not sure which sport they were thinking of in this perception. Perhaps it was hopscotch or conkers.
If you want to hear what competition in sport can do for the development of youngsters, turning them into rounded adults fit for life and business, hear what Helena Morrissey, chief executive of Newton Investment Management, one of the most influential women in the City and member of the Women and Sport Advisory Board— created last September by the right honourable Maria Miller, Minister of State at DCMS—had to say on the subject:
“Watching my sons play rugby, football and cricket has reinforced for me the importance of learning to be part of a team … The importance attached to the boys’ team sports by their schools and peers is also great training for playing in front of a ‘crowd’. The boys learn to deal with performance nerves, to overcome disappointments, to have the strength of character to carry on when losing—and to enjoy victories”.
Helena Morrissey’s company sponsorship of the Women’s Varsity Boat Race is a leap of faith to make equality a reality in a corner of the sporting world. She said,
“and then our daughters will be inspired, their schools compelled and the curriculum altered—to develop, ultimately, more women prepared to run businesses and the world”.
That is what competition in sport can achieve. Britain’s triumphant gold medal winner in the skeleton bob at the Sochi Winter Olympics, Lizzie Yarnold, commented in a BBC interview:
“You don’t get better unless you push yourself”.
That is what competition should do for us all, young and old. I hope that my noble friend and the Government agree.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling this debate, although I fear that when I read the articles about Surrey, I understood why they are bringing that provision in. To deal with that first, rugby union is a game where physical size and strength are important. If you have a group of children who are bigger earlier, they do not compete; they smash down and defeat their opponents and drive them down. They gain nothing in terms of competition from being bigger and stronger; they do not actually have to be very good at the game; and those that they are walking over do not benefit from that either. That is why, in a club game, it is now encouraged that if someone matures earlier, you stick them in with older people. Thus, that article becomes more understandable. When someone says, “You’re taking away the trophy from my children and my club”, I say, “If you’re judging the success of your club by a trophy won by under-nines, go away and have a think about yourself”. That is my take on that.
When it comes to competition, I do not know a sporting activity in which competition is not involved. Competition does not mean the end result but the process by which you undertake these games—how, in any team sport where you have a ball, you move that ball around to achieve your ends. How you teach people to run and receive the ball within the confines of that game is the essential competitive element from which a score can be derived. The competition is the build-up, part of the structure, the movement and the correct way in which you do that. People get obsessed about scores, results and league tables that they can publish and point at—and they are often the people who are not taking part in the sporting activity.
In concentrating on the true competitive element—that is, getting somebody in a competition where the outcome is not more or less predetermined—you are creating competition. By evening the sides out, you create it. Why do you have first, second and third teams in adult sport, in amateur games? It is so that you have even competitive results. The RFU is removing trophies from its junior ranks because they are meaningless for the adult game. The idea that you should have a contest on as even terms as you can get, where the result is not guaranteed, is essential. If we can bring this into the youth policy, it means making sure that people are trained properly to create these situations.
To go back again to rugby union, the sport I know full well, it was probably the worst game for children ever at full 15 level on a full 15 pitch. “Let’s put the winger out there and see if he gets hypothermia first or dies of boredom”, because the ball is too big for him to carry and the pitch too big. All team sports suffer from this to an extent. Rugby is probably the worst, but I remember Trevor Brooking recently saying something about having a full-sized pitch and small children, and how the biggest kid who can kick it down the field and then win it in the air will win you the game. Half of both teams become irrelevant.
Therefore, when we are talking about competition, look at the essence of what it is. Forget about the league tables and the junior trophies. Let us talk about the really difficult bit: creating a situation in which someone gets something out of that process of competing with someone on as even terms as possible. It ain’t going to be for everyone, but most of us will benefit far more from having that skill than we will from not having it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, for tabling this debate. I have a number of interests in sport, all of which are declared in my entry in the register.
Too often, the offer in schools is seen as a choice between competitive and non-competitive sport, and the sporty and non-sporty children. Sadly, it is not quite that simple. As noble Lords may imagine, I am a huge supporter of competitive sport for everyone, but delivered in the right way, not just for those who are talented. It should be used as part of a drive to encourage lifelong participation in physical activity. Currently, 80% of women are not fit enough to be healthy. This alone should give us cause to think about primary school provision because that is where disengagement begins.
In recent years there have been many improvements in how sport is taught and coached, along with the development of the talent pathway and its relationship with competition. However, age grouping is a rather crude measure, as while young people develop there can be a significant disparity in skill level, and even a little training can make a huge difference in performance. Sport Wales is doing some great work in this area which is,
“player-centred, development driven and competition-supported”,
moving away from competition being the main focus. This is very positive because it will do a great deal to improve people’s experience of competition and keep them involved for longer.
I have been on the losing side many times and, quite frankly, it is miserable. Many sports have guidelines on how winners should behave, and I am glad to see that this will be extended to what I call overenthusiastic parents. There has been a lot of debate about the right way to encourage fair play and, while losing can be perhaps a little easier to understand, if not accept, as you get older, it is down to the skill of the coaches and teachers to balance competitive teams but not in a patronising way. I have seen some great examples of balance and, while being beaten by a massive margin is miserable, knowing that someone was being easy on you is worse. We should be more creative, but I do not wish to see junior competitions dumbed down; trophies should be awarded for excellence, effort, and commitment.
The Minister for Sport in another place, Mrs Helen Grant, has been extensively quoted this weekend speaking about girls in sport. She was building on research that has shown why many girls drop out of physical activity and how they feel about competition. We know the issues—they have not changed that much in the years that I have been involved—but one piece of news that I am really pleased about is that the ECB has professionalised the women’s game and is offering paid contracts. I heartily congratulate it and cannot wait for other professional sports to follow. There may always be challenges around body image for young girls but we can make it cool for girls to be sporty and competitive, and what the ECB has done is very powerful.
What we can change relatively easily is how we deliver physical activity in schools. Young people need to be physically literate. If they are taught good, basic skills, they will be able to take part in a wide range of activities with increased confidence and think more positively about participating and competing. For me, the solution is simple: we need to help teachers to deliver physical literacy. The investment that the Government have made is incredibly useful, but think what we could do if we took a radical approach and changed initial teacher training. Can the Minister update us on what plans Her Majesty’s Government have to look at teacher training, especially at primary level, so that a lot of women teachers who may have dropped out of sport between the ages of seven and 12 can understand the principle of physical literacy and are better able to teach core skills? It is not about measuring how far children can jump, run or throw. We do not expect children to do long division without teaching basic maths skills, but that is what we are doing to our children in PE.
None of this is easy to get right—if it were, we would have done it a long time ago. If this were a school report, it would read that we have shown some progress but we could do a lot better.
Lord Allen of Kensington (Lab)
My Lords, my background is a career that started in the steel industry in Scotland when I was 17 and has spanned more than 40 years working in business, broadcasting and the media, but I am delighted to be able to make my maiden speech on a subject that I am equally passionate about. I had the privilege of chairing the Commonwealth Games in Manchester in 2002, was vice-chair of the London 2012 bid and was Mayor of the Olympic Village. Visiting thousands of grassroots clubs as chair of nations and regions has fuelled that passion. I remember vividly one particular visit to the Percy Hedley Academy for Disability Sports in north Tyneside where I was asked to play wheelchair football, demonstrating that this sport is not for the faint-hearted as I sped around at 20 mph much to the amusement of the young, elite athletes.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, an athlete of distinction, a friend and a great inspiration, for her kind words of introduction. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, a cricketing legend, on securing such an important debate.
Today is my first time at the crease on an unfamiliar pitch. I have yet to become familiar with the House but my own fitness has improved as, many times, I have gone down the wrong corridor or up the wrong stairs. In this, I have had great assistance from the wonderful staff and Peers alike, and I am very grateful to them for that. I also pay tribute to my sponsors, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and thank them for their patience in answering my many “daft laddie” questions such as, “Why do we say ‘Good morning’ in the House when it is 2.15 in the afternoon?”.
Although feeling humble and, as you can see, slightly nervous in the presence of such distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House and so many sporting greats, today is an opportunity for me to highlight and honour the 2 million heroes who give up their time each week to help sports clubs in their communities.
In 2012, the world witnessed how London made the two greatest sporting events, the Olympics and Paralympics, even better. Seventy thousand Games makers and London 2012 volunteers around the country played a huge part. Every competitor I spoke to told me how important volunteers are at grassroots level: it had been volunteers who had inspired them, volunteers who had coached them and volunteers who had raised money for their equipment and training. We therefore need to encourage disabled and able-bodied people from all walks of life to join this army of volunteers: the Ritas who, after a gruelling shift at work, turn up even on the wettest Wednesday evening in Wigan, Winchester and Wishaw to coach the under-12s; the Roys who give up their time to repair and maintain the club houses; the Alans who do the fixtures and the transportation; and the Amys who spend many hours doing the accounting and the administration. These heroes are contributing to the many benefits that sport brings and, most importantly, to improving the health and life expectancy of our young people.
Data from Public Health England show that 30% of 10 to 11 year-olds are overweight or obese. Diabetes UK warns that type 2 diabetes—normally associated with obesity and inactivity in middle age—is now becoming prevalent in children, with around 1,400 children diagnosed with this condition. We need urgently to address and reverse those trends if we are to avert an obesity and chronic health time bomb. Getting kids into sport will play an important part but we need to build capacity, and that means more volunteers. Sport England reports that seven out of 10 clubs need more volunteers. I am honoured to be chair of the Join In Trust, which aims to match grass-roots clubs with the thousands of people who are looking to find rewarding and interesting things to do in their communities. Last year we signed up more than 100,000 sports volunteers. This is a good start, but we must do more.
Lord Hoyle (Lab)
May I say to my noble friend that I seem to be always doing “firsts” with him? I met him on the first day when he started at Granada and now I am following him on his maiden speech. He has a lot to offer this House, and I hope that it will not be the last that we will hear from him; I know that it will not.
I thank my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint for initiating this debate because it is very interesting. In field sports, it is often the adult motivation we are looking at rather than that of the children who are participating. We should start from that kind of standpoint. I will explain what I mean by that. Very often, many of the practices that adults expect of children are too difficult for the children themselves to do. They are expected to win at all costs. Every Saturday, I take our dog for a walk and I go past schools where they are playing football. I tell you as an engineer that the language that I hear there frightens the dog—and the dog is a Rottweiler—never mind frightening me. The other problem, which has been mentioned before, is about not being good enough, because, as has rightly been said, kids are at different stages of development. Very often, it is the most physically developed who get on to the team, and that is a detriment to the others.
Given my connection to rugby league, I want to talk about what we are trying to do there. We are running a new pilot scheme. In 2011 we decided to look at what was happening with seven and nine year-olds and see what we could do about it. We looked at the existing practices that were taking place, and from that a pilot scheme has evolved. It is designed to make playing itself more fun for the children—to make them enjoy it and want to do it. It is designed also to give them more time on the ball and to develop their skills. It is absolutely providing that. To give them an opportunity to develop skills is very important.
We called the new format we developed a festival format, and it is getting more and more children to participate. That in itself is very important. It is a modified game so all children can play. No child is left out: there are enough teams to ensure that everyone has a chance to participate in it. There are no substitutes either, so they all get a chance to develop their skills. Even when they have not been interested, we are finding that there is an interest that children take. More importantly, we are finding that this interest is being carried on later in life, so that the interest in sport continues.
The pilot scheme itself was launched in Leeds and was particularly successful in east Leeds, which is one of the more deprived areas of the city. We saw a dramatic increase in under-sevens who are participating in the game and registering to be in it. It is a new step forward, as far as we are concerned, in getting children involved in the game. I will finish on this because my time is up. Having been rolled out in Leeds, it is now being rolled out across Yorkshire and that will be followed by Cumbria, London and the north-west, so I hope noble Lords will wish it every success in the future.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, for sponsoring this debate, and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Allen, on a wonderful maiden speech, which we all enjoyed.
I agree with other noble Lords that dads can be a bit of a problem. They are standing there yelling their heads off and trying to fulfil their own dreams; normally they were not very successful themselves. I remember one friend of mine pulling his youngster off the field and saying, “You little blankety-blank coward”, which I did not think was very helpful for a 10 year-old, and that is the sort of conduct that you see. I have been there refereeing, controlling dads on the line, coaching and trying to get parents to realise that little Johnny may not have been picked for the very best of reasons. The problem is that children feel that they have failed, and become disillusioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, talked about rugby league and outlined the programme that the RFL has carried out. The one area that he did not refer to, however, was north Wales. I declare an interest: my son is the chief executive of the North Wales Crusaders. The club started up two and a half years ago, and rugby league is now the most delivered sport in schools in north-east Wales. It is simple and inclusive. Coaches focus on the physical literacy to which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred. It encourages them to run, pass, catch and dodge with the ball in hand, and promotes the fun aspects of the game before anyone gets hung up on winning. This is done first in school sessions and then encouraged at larger mass participation events. The North Wales Crusaders’ “Give & Gain Day” brought 400 children together from 20 schools to attend one event, where players from the professional team, who had qualified as coaches especially for the event, ran different “skill stations”, encouraging the children to develop that physical literacy before being introduced to a competitive environment.
Competitiveness is introduced in a controlled and inclusive way so as to avoid the “biggest/strongest/fastest” issue that my noble friend Lord Addington talked about. I recall that when I was in school, one Kilblinski—known as “Killer Kilblinski” to his friends—was playing with us in the First XV aged just 15. The Crusaders have developed some simple strategies; for example, if a child scores a try, he is taken off the pitch for two minutes and given a break. This means that those who hog the ball spend less time on the pitch if they simply try to score every time they touch the ball and do not include those around them. That is a very sensible way of getting more involved.
In the past 12 months the Crusaders have held 578 coaching sessions, with 95 schools or clubs involved; 2,800 children aged eight to 17 did on average nine sessions each. However, the local council and Sport Wales—which is focused on the union game—provide minimal funding: between them, they do not even cover the cost of one community coach’s salary. That has to be addressed if this sort of participation is to be encouraged.
The absolute key to all this is bridging the gap between school and the community game. Sport does not end when the school gate is closed. North Wales Crusaders are developing a network of “doorstep” clubs, which can be easily introduced into all communities. Who knows? Rugby league may dominate the north of Wales as union does, very successfully, the south.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in 2006, Gordon Brown, as Chancellor, wrote an outstanding Olympic manifesto. In an article titled My Fight to Get Britain Fit for the Olympics, he outlined the following measures: to offer children four hours of school sport by 2010; to lead the world in 2012 as one of the fittest and most sporting of nations; to offer after-school sport and links to all local sports clubs; to have every school playing competitively in local leagues; to increase sports volunteering in schools and communities by 1 million; to provide every potential young sports star with extra support to help them train and develop; and that every school should have access to playing fields and better sports facilities.
It would be good to report that one of these laudable sports legacy initiatives had been achieved. Sadly, I cannot report that any of these measures have been delivered because the necessary building blocks for an Olympic sports legacy for young people were absent. The hard evidence, as evidenced in the recent Select Committee report, excellently chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, who I note is in his place today, highlighted that. The reality is that work for young children must start now, but how?
First, I applaud the approach taken by Scotland in its “Excellence” curriculum for physical education in primary schools that calls for all subjects to be delivered in a physically active way—not always through competitive sport. A step change is also needed at the Department of Health towards preventive health rather than having clinical targets, and recognition by the Department for Education that physical education has a distinctive and vital role to play in education. As has been rightly pointed out, primary school teacher training in sport is in need of far higher prioritisation.
The biggest neglect in national strategy during the past two decades has been the lack of focus on how local authorities can assist. In the main they provide most of the facilities that clubs and national governing bodies need to support young people and they often finance the most accessible first-stage coaching opportunities across a range of sports. The Government need to support local government, making spend on recreation and leisure mandatory, not discretionary. They need to invest in incentives for local authorities to use for clubs and their members; for example, a more systematic provision of rate relief.
The School Games initiative was the silver bullet in the mind of Jeremy Hunt in the run-up to the London Olympics. That was thought to address competition in sport. It was a good idea in principle but I regret that it has become in many respects a complex and unwieldy bureaucratic structure of activities ranging from level 1 up to level 4. I well recall going to a county level 3 in Kent where “Splat the Rat” and golf with giant plastic clubs and foam balls were in evidence on a hard tennis court. That was not competitive sport between teams representing their schools. Everybody enjoyed themselves but the reality is that funding, as recognised by the Government, should go first into schools to improve delivery. It needs to be directed towards the governing bodies of sport that for decades have built the expertise and experience in delivering competitive school sports. We have the Rosslyn Park National Schools Sevens, the National Schools’ Regatta, and the evidence of my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint, in her excellent speech, on ECB initiatives.
I shall close by quoting the interesting article by David Walsh that some of your Lordships will have read in the Sunday Times yesterday. He said:
“If one wish transcended all others in the aftermath of London 2012 it was that more young people, especially girls, would see sport as something they wanted to do and levels of participation would rise”.
Sadly, it has not happened.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint on initiating this debate, albeit a short one, but because of the importance of the subject, I hope that there will be a major debate on the Floor of the Chamber in the future.
I make no apologies for raising the question of boxing in schools, and its importance. I wish to illustrate the beneficial side of competitive sport, particularly boxing at school and amateur levels. Certainly at these levels, boxing is not harmful, yet some of my so-called friends, knowing that I started my boxing at school, think that it did some damage to me, finishing up as a Member of Parliament and a Peer of the realm.
Lord Pendry
They may well also say that about the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who, like me, boxed at Oxford although, I must say, in different years and at different weights.
Seriously, though, boxing in schools promotes skill development and a structured pathway leading to competition and coaching. Some who contend that boxing is a dangerous and inappropriate sport for youths are, in my view, misinformed. Boxing is not only about fisticuffs and strength but is a sport based principally on skill, structure, rules and discipline. It is also a sport that appeals to both boys and girls, and is less dangerous than many sports as defined by Sport England.
Intersport boxing competitions have taken place in various schools near where I was an MP, in Manchester, but also in London, the south-west and other areas of the country. I argue that in those schools, competitive boxing increases fitness levels and promotes a healthy lifestyle. Many teachers have witnessed increased motivation in disengaged students, improvements in self-confidence and self-esteem, greater enthusiasm and positive behaviour. Boxing teaches both girls and boys about the value of respect, sportsmanship and self-worth. In my view, teachers and parents heavily support competitive boxing in schools, with schools such as North Chadderton School in Oldham, which I recently visited, allowing students to be assessed practically on their boxing skill as part of GCSE and A-level studies. At one of the schools I went to recently, in fact, the Ofsted inspector was quoted as saying that,
“it was a refreshing change to the normal PE curriculum and an excellent lesson”.
As I have a minute or so left, I shall simply say that the current debate brought about by the Minister for Sport underlines the need for a more appropriate approach to sport. What planet is Helen Grant on when she advocates young girls to take up more feminine sports like cheerleading, ballet and roller skating to make them look “absolutely radiant”? Tell that to Nicola Adams, the boxing gold medallist, or Gemma Gibbons, the silver medallist in judo, or indeed our speakers today: the noble Baronesses, Lady Heyhoe Flint, Lady Massey and Lady Grey-Thompson, the greatest Olympian of them all. They are all feminine and all radiant.
I would go on complimenting noble Lords but my time is up. I hope that we have a bigger and longer debate in the other Chamber soon.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, on securing this debate and warmly welcome the maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Allen of Kensington and his welcome attention to volunteers in the world of sport, without whom, of course, much of what we enjoy in sport today in the UK would not be there. As my noble friend Lord Hoyle said, he clearly has a lot to offer the House and we look forward to hearing from him in future.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said, despite the title, most noble Lords who have spoken in this rather excellent debate have challenged the binary assumption of the title and drawn attention to the need to think much more widely about the question of how we locate competitive sport within sport in the context of other issues, such as the problems with obesity in the population; issues about body image, which affect boys and girls; the role of physical literacy, which is important across many ways in which we engage with the world; and the role of elite sports men and women in our society, possibly in combination with the way in which the media relate to them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, the situation that we face at the moment is pretty dire because we have not achieved the aspirations that we all had when we engaged with the Olympics. Indeed, the situation has got worse since the end of the previous Government. In 2009-10, more than 90% of pupils were taking part in two hours of PE and school sport a week, up from an estimated 25% in 2002. In competitive sport, 78% of pupils—77% of girls and 79% of boys—took part in intraschool competitive activities. In 2009-10, 49% of pupils took part in interschool competitive sport; again, up significantly. That was a reasonable starting point and it was largely down to the success of school sport partnerships, which have not been mentioned much today but were a notable feature of the past decade or so, which increased participation for both men and women and did not pose the question of whether it was competitive or encouraging participation—it was both.
Recent research has shown a 60% decline in the number of schools involved in organising school sport partnerships, and that is to be regretted. We now read in the papers that more than half of children fail to get at least two hours of physical education every week. The Education Select Committee published a report in July that criticised the Government’s approach to school sport, saying:
“There is clear evidence that the ending of the school sport partnerships funding has had a negative impact, including on the opportunities for young people to access competitive sporting opportunities in school”.
I would like the Minister to reflect on what we were told in 2011 by the then Secretary of State, Mr Jeremy Hunt, who said that he was,
“banishing once and for all the left-wing orthodoxy that promotes ‘prizes for all’ and derides competition”,
and that he could sum up the Government’s sports policy in three words: more competitive sport. Is that really the answer? Does it not need, as we have heard, a more nuanced response, from local authorities, schools, health and education, all working together? I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that question.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and thank noble Lords for a lively and well supported exchange of views. It has been very much enriched by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Kensington, who brought his very considerable experience of these matters. The noble Lord definitely hit a six with his maiden speech, and I congratulate him.
The summer of 2012 showed us that there is a tremendous appetite in this country for sporting competition. In the past year, 83% of children aged five to 15 reported that they had participated in some form of competitive sport—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and I need to go over our figures together—with 79% taking part in school and 37% outside of school. We want these figures to increase.
Competitive sport plays an important role in a child’s development. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Allen and Lord Stevenson, said, it is all about improving health and well-being, but it also helps to teach children how to deal with the ups and downs that life undoubtedly brings. I was very struck by what IOC President Thomas Bach said last night in the closing ceremony about recognising victory and defeat with dignity. It also teaches children how to work in a team, which is extremely important, and many of your Lordships have been involved in very senior team-making. It also improves confidence and increases concentration.
Furthermore, it is a widely held view that children should be physically active as early as possible so as to gain the skills and confidence they need to compete in sport—as well as life skills—and take them on into adult life. That is why the Government are committed to reviving competitive sport and why we have given it a much needed boost by establishing the School Games and investing in the PE and sport primary school premium. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that it must be delivered in the right way.
Launched in 2011, the School Games features more than 30 sports, many of which have been raised during this debate. It is sponsored by Sainsbury’s and run by the Youth Sport Trust, and has already transformed competitive school sport. It is designed to give every child the chance to play more competitive sport, regardless of ability or disability, across four levels.
At level 1, pupils compete against their peers in school, culminating in an annual school games sports day. At level 2, schools compete against each other. Level 3 features the best athletes from levels 1 and 2, who represent their school at a county festival. Last year, more than 100 summer and winter festivals took place, involving more than 100,000 pupils, about 10% of whom were children with disabilities, and 36% of whom were of primary school age.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Does my noble friend agree that the Government in Wales ought to take note of the investment that this Government are making in sport for children?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I would go further than that. I think that all home nations should think about that carefully, for the reasons outlined by your Lordships, the key points about the health and well-being of children, so I very much endorse what my noble friend said.
On facilities, the Prime Minister recently announced a new £18 million fund to help about 600 primary schools that are most in need. We know also that secondary schools open their facilities to help primary schools that require additional space for competitions. I hope this will be an expanding feature, because this is another key sector where there are facilities in the area from which we must make sure that all school children can benefit.
Sport England has commissioned Fit for Sport to run a pilot exploring how schools in Somerset could get more involved in School Games, for example by posting their results online against which other schools could compete. The result was increased participation.
I want also to refer to Project Ability—a bespoke project within School Games, which has helped to introduce around 25,000 young disabled people to competitive sport. A good example of this is in Gloucestershire, where a sailing event was an inclusive competition with special educational needs or disabilities children and non-SEND pupils from different schools competing in joint teams, with the winners awarded combined medals. This is another example of ways in which we should be working.
I also wanted to raise an issue that has obviously been a matter of some discussion in the newspapers, and I think it quite rightly belongs in this debate. This is about ensuring that girls are given as many competitive opportunities as boys. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, particularly raised this, as did my noble friends Lady Heyhoe Flint and Lord Moynihan. I was interested to be briefed that now more girls than boys are competing at the School Games county festivals. I very much hope that this will be a feature of a continuing competition between the boys and the girls to ensure that the girls are in the lead on this.
I turn now to volunteering. School Games is about more than just competing in sport. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, who chairs the highly successful Join In programme, will know well that School Games is also helping to build teams of volunteers. Volunteers in sport are crucial: without them, most sport simply could not happen. School Games is supported by a range of volunteers, including non-teaching staff, parents and the children themselves. I must also refer to referees, as my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford raised referees as a very important feature of any sport. The county festivals alone benefited from more than 12,000 young volunteers giving up their time to support the athletes and spectators, while the majority of volunteers at the national finals were young people, with over 500 involved in Sheffield last year.
Children should be able to enjoy and participate in competitive sport from a young age, and take those skills with them on into secondary school, the community and beyond. The important word that came out was “fun”. My noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint mentioned the “fun environment”; the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, mentioned the word “fun”. It is very clear that rugby league in his part of the world is in very good heart as it is in Wales, in my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford’s part of the world. Boxing is a game which the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, has mentioned. They are all very much part of the community. That is why, in addition to the School Games, and the premium and the curriculum, we have our £1 billion youth and community sport strategy for 11 to 25 year-olds, which includes specific programmes for Sport Activate and community satellite clubs to help children make the transition into community sport.
I want to reassure your Lordships that the Government are taking serious steps to encourage younger children to participate in competitive sport. The advantages of children participating in the right way and volunteering are recognised, as evidenced by the involvement of four government departments in this work. This debate has illustrated the firm commitment of so many of your Lordships to take this matter further and quite rightly so; it has highlighted the immense practical experience and truly exceptional sporting success your Lordships bring as we all seek a healthier and more fulfilled life for the children of our country.
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Moran
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on 14 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Courtesy Titles
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to promote equality in the use of courtesy titles.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, while the Government recognise the equality issues surrounding the use of courtesy titles, we have no plans to alter their use due to the complexity of the system and the likelihood of confusion arising from alteration to the long-standing custom and practice governing this matter.
Baroness Deech (CB)
I can assure the Minister that, having looked into the issue, it is not as difficult as he imagines and that there could be change. Does he not agree that equality has to start in this House and that the use of the title “Lady” by the wives of knights and noble Lords is discriminatory unless a title of some sort is also accorded to the husbands of noble Baronesses and dames? Either the title should be used only by those to whom it was awarded, or husbands and wives and partners have to be treated equally.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I think the statement that equality must start in this House is one which will be received with surprise by a number of those outside. I thank the noble Baroness for encouraging me to read Debrett’s for the first time. Having read Debrett’s for the first time, I know this is a highly complex issue. I recognise that the use of courtesy titles and titles for the spouses of Peers—which are apparently legal titles, not courtesy titles—has grown up over the past 500 to 600 years. The rapid changes in the relationship between the sexes and in marriage over the past 50 years have, of course, left us with a number of anomalies, of which the Government are well aware, but we are not persuaded that it is urgent to adjust them now.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, now that same-sex marriage is on the statute book and will be implemented before long, has the Minister given any serious thought to the award of knighthoods—or damehoods for that matter—to people who have entered into such relationships?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that is taken care of within the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013. I understand that exceptions have been made for this in that Act and in the earlier Marriage Act. The coalition Government and, I am sure, all parties are much concerned about the weakness of social mobility in Britain. I am not sure that we should spend too much time concerning ourselves with the subtle finesse of social stratification.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that was a truly Conservative answer. The noble Lord has spent far too long on that Bench. My question is entirely relevant to the question of courtesy titles. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are intending to introduce yet another list of new Peers to your Lordships’ House? Can the noble Lord reassure me that that is not the case?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not informed on the subject so I can neither assure nor reassure the noble Lord. I have asked some female colleagues in this House how much their husbands care about not having a title and a number of them have told me robustly that their husbands not only do not care but positively do not wish to have them. I am aware that a number of wives of Members of this House do not use their courtesy titles either.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, given that we changed the law of succession for the sovereign only last year, are there any plans to change the law of succession for hereditary peers rather than the question of courtesy titles?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we spent some time on Fridays on a Private Member’s Bill on this very question. The House was some way from consensus on it the last time we debated it.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a precedent? In 1392 and 1408, when there were two Countesses of Mar in their own right, their husbands were made Earls for their lifetime on the basis that the women could not go to war or sit in Parliament. However, I have asked my husband and he said that he does not want to be Earl of Mar because he neither wants to go to war nor to sit in Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am very grateful for that remark. I was aware of that precedent and I am told there was another Scottish precedent, from the 16th century, in which the husband was refused the appropriate title.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have actually killed off three husbands so perhaps the question does not arise for me? Are there not much more important matters that the Government should be concerned with?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, when the Opposition Front Bench accused me of being Conservative it was precisely because I was saying that the Government think there are other more important things. I would have thought that the Opposition Front Bench might agree with that.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I accept that there may be more important things to contend with at the moment, but this is a question of equality. I was concerned by the noble Lord’s reply that it was too complex. Does he remember that, at one time, it was too complex to give women the vote?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the British constitution is extremely complex. If we attempted to redesign it on a rational basis this House would certainly not exist. Whether or not the monarchy would exist is another question. We live with odd elements of tradition and history that are part of the rich tapestry of the country. These do evolve. I doubt whether very many children of newly appointed life Peers now accept or use the title of “Honourable”. We are moving slowly and we adapt as we go on.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware, having read Debrett’s, that the way we are constantly referred to in the press as “Lady Sue” someone or “Lady Joan” someone is totally incorrect? The woman’s Christian name is always printed with “Baroness Something”, but this does not apply to the men. By doing that, the press is elevating us and making us the daughters of someone with a much higher, hereditary, title.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am much better informed on that issue than I was a week ago. Perhaps I may have forgotten in a week or two’s time.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, would it not be better to get rid of titles altogether?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord might well say that; I could not possibly comment.
Drug Companies: Medical Trials
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they intend to take in respect of drug companies that withhold the results of medical trials.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, companies are legally required through the marketing authorisation application process to provide the relevant regulatory authority with all information for evaluation of a medicine. This includes clinical trial results which are both favourable and unfavourable. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has powers to take action where particulars supporting an application are incorrect or where the company has failed to inform authorities of new information that would influence the evaluation of the benefits and risks of the product.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, the number 1 risk on the Government’s national risk assessment for civil emergencies, ahead of both coastal flooding and a major terrorist incident, is that of pandemic influenza. Is the noble Lord concerned that Tamiflu, which is supplied for use in a flu epidemic, may not be as effective as was once thought? Is he concerned that many large-scale trials of Tamiflu have not been publicly reported?
Earl Howe
My Lords, during the course of last year, the Government gave detailed evidence to the Science and Technology Committee on the issue of data provision in respect of clinical trials. The committee made a number of helpful recommendations on the removal of barriers to transparency. In our formal response, we set out how we would work to achieve the aims of greater transparency. In the light of that response, the Government are looking into the recommendations of the PAC report on the stockpiling of Tamiflu and access to clinical trials data, published in January. We will give our formal response to the report next month.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, evidence shows that the chances of a complete trial being published are roughly 50%. The recent EU clinical trials draft directive will require all trials to be registered before they start, and full results to be published within a year. However, the regulation will be applicable only to trials starting from this year. How do the Government plan to ensure that pharmaceutical companies will release medical records for drugs that were launched before 2014?
Earl Howe
My noble friend raises a topical question. The industry’s trade body, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry made clear, in its code of practice in 2012, that companies are obliged to publish all clinical trial results within a year of marketing authorisation and publicly register new clinical trials within 21 days of the first patient being enrolled. That, of course, is a forward-looking exhortation, but we are encouraged by the fact that the industry is taking an increasingly responsible view in this area by publishing data voluntarily, as demonstrated by companies such as GSK, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson. We want to encourage more companies to do the same.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
The noble Earl has made very clear the legal background to the present situation. He is fully aware that if a drug that has been fully tested and shown to be highly effective, and NICE has recommended that it should be prescribed to patients, the authorities have the legal responsibility to prescribe it. If, on the other hand, NICE has been given evidence to indicate that a particular remedy is ineffective as a result of negative clinical trials, is it equally incumbent on health authorities to recommend that that drug should not be prescribed?
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
I compliment my noble friend on the full and comprehensive Answer that he gave to the Question, and on the reassurance that it contained. Do he and his colleagues think that perhaps the issue here is not the legal framework but the issue of transparency and ease of access to information? If they think that that has some merit, would they be willing to consider having a simplified summary of the legal position on the department’s website for easy access for those who are interested?
Earl Howe
I absolutely agree with my noble friend. The Government are committed to transparency in the area of clinical trials. Transparency is important for patients, the public, researchers and the NHS, and it can be achieved through ensuring trial registration and outcome publication, as well as making data available through the appropriate channels. I think that the new EU regulation will be extremely helpful in promoting transparency, and the availability of summaries of all trials and clinical study reports will be a part of that regulation. However, I take my noble friend’s point about a simple guide for the public and I will gladly consider it.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the work put in hand by the previous Government to ensure that we had the capacity to produce sufficient quantities of drugs to counteract various types of bird flu, once it had been identified, has now been completed and that we are in a position to be able to do that?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I come back to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Once a medicine goes off patent it can, through generic production, remain available to members of the public for many years. The evidence seems to be that trials that give a favourable verdict are twice as likely to be published as trials giving unfavourable results. Could the noble Earl focus a little more on whether the industry can be encouraged to produce evidence around those trials in relation to current medicines as well as future ones? I also refer noble Lords to my health interest in the register.
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is important to point out that the MHRA does not have evidence that there is systematic or large-scale withholding of data. However, it has investigated cases in the past where clinical trials and safety data were not properly reported. The Government believe that the proposals included in the new EU clinical trials regulation will, as I said, contribute to greater transparency in the area of clinical trials. It must be remembered that any company infringing even the current rules can lay itself open to some very severe penalties.
Health: Folic Acid
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answers by Earl Howe on 18 December 2013 (HL Deb, col 1261) and 21 January (HL Deb, col 567), what was the population sample of females of child-bearing age used in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey for folate status; and on what dates the survey data were collected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
Blood samples for folate-status analysis were collected from more than 600 females of childbearing age—15 to 49 years—as part of a UK representative sample of adults and children in the National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Blood samples were collected over four years from 2008-09 until 2011-12.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that those figures are much smaller than recent research samples such as the 50,000 people involved in the Lancet-published research last year and the 500,000 women in England over a 12-year period in the research published last week that showed that the quantity of folic supplements taken by them was actually falling, which is the current policy? Given that the UK has the highest rate of neurological defects in the whole of Europe—80% of which pregnancies are terminated—is it not time to make a decision, talk to industry, the medics and science and join the other 70 countries protecting women from those births?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I recognise that this is an extremely important decision for the Government to make, affecting many people’s lives. I do not accept the implication behind the noble Lord’s question that the numbers involved in the analysis were somehow statistically invalid. I am assured that they represent a valid statistical base. We welcome all robust new evidence around the issue of fortification, such as the study published last week by the Wolfson Institute, and I can assure the noble Lord that we will take a decision on this matter as soon as possible.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, could the noble Earl give a little more precision as to what “as soon as possible” actually means? He referred to the study produced by the Wolfson Institute last week. Is he aware of the comments of Sir Nicholas Wald of the Wolfson Institute that it will be a public health tragedy if this country does not follow the example of the many other countries that have introduced this in a mandatory way? Is it not time that the Government simply made a decision? Indeed, they are clearly briefing to the media that they are going to make a positive decision. Why do not they just come clean and say, “We’re going to do it”, and say which date it will start from?
Earl Howe
My Lords, as I have explained on earlier occasions, it is very important that we use the latest data to reach a robust and defensible view of the risks and benefits on this issue. We will take the new National Diet and Nutrition Survey data on folate status into account when we do reach a decision. As for the position taken in other countries, while a number of countries have introduced mandatory fortification of flour with folic acid, others notably have decided against it, including Ireland and New Zealand.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the single most effective public health measure, which would prevent the birth of babies with severe spina bifida and lifelong disability, would be 400 micrograms daily of folic acid. Why would we not do that as a public health measure, when all the scientific evidence is already there?
Earl Howe
My Lords, in recommending the fortification of flour with folic acid, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition also advised that action should be taken to reduce levels of voluntary fortification, which, as the noble Lord knows, is applied to a number of breakfast cereals, for example. That is no easy matter. It would be necessary to avoid folate levels exceeding recommended limits and to put action in train to achieve that. There are other conditions and advice attached to the SACN recommendation; it is not quite as straightforward in practice as the noble Lord might suggest, although I recognise that the recommendation from SACN is there.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I am very disappointed by these answers today. I thought that this matter was signed and sealed when we heard my noble friend’s answers some weeks ago. In reply to my question, he just said that I was a bit premature in asking whether it could be put in brown bread as well as white. Really, the facts have been established that in order to have an overdose you would have to eat two or more full loaves of bread, and I think that the danger of any pregnant woman doing that is pretty small.
Earl Howe
My Lords, my noble friend always raises some extremely valid points and, of course, I take them. However, I would just gently point out that SACN is concerned about overdosing, which is why it urged that action should be taken to reduce levels of voluntary fortification. Mandatory fortification of a staple food is, I would suggest, a serious matter for the nation, and these decisions have to be reached in a robust and responsible way.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us who is actually doing the assessment on the data that are available so far? The noble Earl finds himself in a difficult position as we revisit this question almost on a monthly basis. A number of us are at a total loss to know why he cannot tell us when a decision will be taken. Will the assessment be made in his department and, if not, where is the assessment going to be made so that Ministers are given the knowledge and data to make a decision on this question, which is long overdue?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition is the body charged by government to advise Ministers, and the decision will be taken by Ministers. But we have thought it prudent and sensible to take into account the latest data on the folate status of the population. The information that SACN drew from is more than a decade old, and we do not think that that is a sensible basis on which to take a decision one way or the other. So we must wait for that evaluation.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is an equal conundrum with adding fluoride to water? Her Majesty’s Government seem to be quite happy that fluoride should be added to water, yet there is a possibility of overdose if people have fluoride tablets, fluoride toothpaste and all sorts of other things. What is the difference between that and folates?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, given that there is a delay in the Government’s decision, what is being done to ensure that young women are informed about the importance of having some supplements? Waiting until they are pregnant is clearly too late.
Earl Howe
My Lords, government advice on taking supplements is available to women through a number of channels, including Healthy Start, NHS Choices, Start4Life, The Young Woman’s Guide to Pregnancy and the Information Service for Parents. To improve maternity services for women, NICE has published a comprehensive suite of evidence-based clinical guidelines in this area.
Health: Meningitis B Vaccine
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Turnberg
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce a vaccine for meningitis B in children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the independent expert committee that advises the Government on immunisation matters, has not yet made a final recommendation about the use of the meningococcal B vaccine, Bexsero. The JCVI is due to report in March 2014, having reviewed additional evidence at its meeting earlier this month. We will respond to any JCVI recommendation as quickly as possible.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Meningococcus B causes a very nasty form of meningitis. It affects about 1,000 cases a year, mostly in children. It kills about one in 10 and causes severe and lasting disability in one in three. It is no wonder that it is a parent’s worst nightmare. Yet the safe and licensed vaccine that can prevent most cases was turned down by the JCVI after what seems to have been rather a doubtful cost-benefit analysis. Will the Minister make sure that when the JCVI comes to look at it again, as it is doing, it uses a more relevant discount value for the quantity and quality of a child’s life; and that once the Government have received the committee’s advice, they will make a rapid decision to make the vaccine available?
Earl Howe
I can give the noble Lord an assurance on the latter point. We will take a decision as rapidly as we can once we receive the JCVI advice. I appreciate that the JCVI’s interim position statement will have been disappointing to many people. I know the noble Lord recognises that it is important that decisions about the introduction of new vaccines into the national immunisation programme take account of evidence of their effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness compared to other healthcare interventions. We need to wait and see what the JCVI’s final advice is. I am aware that it is looking at the cost-effectiveness methodology that is used for vaccines of this type.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, do the options now being developed by Public Health England at the request of the Government include a population-based evaluation of the meningitis B vaccination, taking into account the discounted lifetime cost to the public sector of supporting children who are disabled by the disease? Will my noble friend also explain why the Department of Health assumed that the carriage effects achieved with meningitis C do not read across to this variant of the disease?
Earl Howe
I can tell my noble friend that the JCVI has been considering both those issues: first, the possible need for a population-based evaluation of the MenB vaccine to address uncertainties in its effectiveness; and, secondly, what the possible effect of the MenB vaccine on the carriage of meningitis B bacteria might be. I say again that we need to wait for the JCVI’s final statement of advice to get clarity on either of those issues.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, of course I understand that we need to await the outcome of the Joint Committee’s further deliberations. However, following up the Question asked by my noble friend, if the committee sticks to the view that a vaccine would have a huge impact on an estimated 1,000 young people every year but still considers that that is not cost-effective, surely it calls into question the methodology that it is using. Will the noble Earl say a little more about how the Government can ensure that this methodology is put under full scrutiny?
Earl Howe
Last October, in recognition of concerns about the methodology currently used for assessing cost-effectiveness of vaccines, the JCVI agreed that a working group should be formed to consider two issues: first, how the impact of vaccination programmes to prevent rare diseases of high severity should be best assessed; and, secondly, whether there were aspects of cost-effectiveness in relation specifically to children that should be addressed. It is a complex issue both economically and, indeed, ethically. We should not expect a report from that group, once it has been established, until next year at the earliest.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the vaccines that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg—he is a friend, at least as regards medical matters—talked about are developed through a new kind of science, which does not involve the use of eggs or any other animal material, and therefore is not only more effective but produces fewer side-effects, particularly in children. The vaccine that we are talking about is for a particular type of meningitis. The new vaccine may not be considered as cost-effective as a conventional vaccine. However, if you take into account clinical side-effects, the new vaccine may be considered cost-effective, so a different kind of assessment must be carried out that is based not just on conventional cost-effectiveness.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, how do we compare with other European countries in giving children this vaccine?
Earl Howe
Our childhood immunisation programme generally bears comparison with any country in the world and is very extensive and very successful. However, the incidence and prevalence of meningitis B is higher than in many other countries, which is why there is such concern about it.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that, if this vaccine is accepted, the infrastructure will be in place to enable it to be administered swiftly to as many children as possible? Are health professionals trained and ready to administer the vaccine, if it is decided to accept it?
Pensions Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:21 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 210 - Amendment 1 agreed.
17:43 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 237 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
“( ) Regulations may provide for circumstances in which a person may opt to have a year treated as a qualifying year if by aggregating income from two or more jobs, that person’s earnings are equal to or greater than the lower earnings level for that year.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
I am grateful for the tolerance of the House in allowing me to delay speaking for a moment or two while noble Lords are leaving the Chamber. They are clearly underwhelmed by the issue that we are about to debate.
I strongly welcome the new state pension. Pensions are attached to the waged labour market. Only one job in four created since 2008 is, according to the Work Foundation, permanent; 1 million or more are zero-hours contracts with no certainty of any work at all. Hundreds of thousands of others are short-hours contracts and, along with other non-standard employment patterns such as term-time working, job sharing and so on, comprise 40% of all jobs—I repeat, 40%—as employers seek to match a flexible and irregular labour force to flexible and irregular demand.
Part-time work and flexible work may suit, and does suit, many women, students or older people on a pension. Those jobs are in cleaning, catering, domiciliary care—involving 150,000 people—hotel and retail, and are usually paid at around minimum wage level. Very many of those people will not be building a state pension. Our pension structure, both state and private, has not yet caught up. It is 10 or 15 years behind as the plates shift in the labour market.
This amendment, which is permissive, seeks to put a pension floor under workers who may work in several mini-jobs and put in quite long hours—30 or so a week—but who cannot, under rules set out decades ago, build themselves a new state pension. If they are in one job with sufficient pay they will build a state pension, but if they are in several jobs with identical pay they do not. If your Lordships agree today we can begin to do something about it.
Under Governments of both parties we have sought to credit people into the national insurance system for a state pension where, for good reason, people are not in waged work. They include mothers of young children, disabled people and carers. Universal credit, which I strongly support, will credit another 0.8 million people into national insurance, I understand.
So where are we? From 2016 you will need 35 years’ worth of credits or payments into the national insurance system to get a full state pension. If you are unemployed and on JSA, and later on UC, you are credited in for free. If you have a child under 12, are a grandparent caring for a child whose mother works or are on disability benefits or carer’s allowance, you are rightly credited in for free. Your Lordships have over the years been at the forefront of pressing all Governments to bring such groups rightly into the national insurance system. If you earn above the lower earnings limit, or LEL, at £5,700 a year you come into the national insurance system for free. If you earn more than £7,500 in a single job you come into the NI system but pay. If, however, you work 30 hours a week and earn £11,000 a year but in several, splintered jobs, you cannot add the pay together to get above the LEL. Come retirement, you do not have a decent state pension.
Hence this amendment. It seeks an entirely permissive way in which to future-proof our state pension structure for those in the new flexible economy who work in and combine mini-jobs, by allowing them to combine the earnings from several jobs for a pension if that takes them over the LEL at £5,700. In the past, perhaps 50,000 people, mostly women, were affected, especially in rural areas, as they stitched together a patchwork of cleaning, fruit picking, bar work and so on, and they relied instead on their husband through the married women’s dependency pension. That pension, which would have protected her, is being abolished. She—or you, or we—is on her own and will not get any state pension from her patchwork of mini-jobs. From now on she gets nothing at all. The reason is that the labour market has changed dramatically in the past decade or so with the growth of zero-hours and short-hours contracts.
Short-hours contracts guarantee part-time work for three, 13 or maybe 23 hours. Zero-hours contracts, however, do not guarantee you any hours at all. You may in practice work 10, 15 or more hours fairly regularly. Equally you could find at the beginning of your shift, 10 minutes before you are due to start work, that there is no work for you: you get no pay and go home. I understand that every Domino’s Pizza worker is on a zero-hours contract—ZHCs—as are hundreds of thousands of staff in McDonald’s, Boots, Burger King, Subway, Wetherspoon and Sports Direct. They work in food joints, call centres, customer services and domiciliary care; they are cooks, cleaners, drivers and waiters; they are agency workers—almost all of whom are on zero-hours contracts. Most are on, or on around, minimum wage. Far from this being a shrinking sector of the market, the number of such contracts is increasing rapidly and very many of those workers will not be building a new state pension.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, a sustainable welfare system needs to be affordable, but it also has to be inclusive and responsive to the realities of the contemporary labour market. For a long time, the national insurance and state pension system has been exclusive, indeed unfair, in its application to a particular group of workers, mainly women—a community which the department estimates to be about 50,000 and consisting of people who undertake mini-jobs. Each job delivers earnings below the lower earnings limit of £5,668, the access point for the national insurance and state pension system, but there is no provision for people with these mini-jobs to aggregate their earnings in a way that would allow them to enter the national insurance system. For example, a woman with two part-time jobs, earning £100 a week from each, will not accrue national insurance and pension rights unless she is covered by some alternative crediting arrangements. Someone earning £110 from one job would accrue. Yet £100 equals about 16 hours on the national minimum wage, so a person with more than one such mini-job could be working a significant number of hours.
Mini-jobs may be driven by caring responsibilities, work availability and, more recently, the increasingly common phenomenon of the zero-hours contract. Some of these women could gain state pension through their husband’s entitlement, but from 2016 they will not be able to build up an entitlement through their spouse because the new single-tier pension allows women to accrue pensions only in their own right. My noble friend Lady Hollis demonstrated the example of women in households who no longer have young children and whose spouse’s income floats them off universal credit being locked out of the pension system. The Bill makes the default position of entitlement through their spouse for many women disappear, which gives the problem fresh urgency.
My noble friend Lady Hollis has long campaigned to have this unfairness addressed and lists the rebuttals she has faced over the years: that it is not reasonable to try to share employers’ national insurance across mini-jobs; that the women will not want to pay class 1 contributions; that there are not very many of them; that their situation is temporary; that they have time to make up missing years; and, if all else fails, that there is pensions credit.
However, the urgency and the scale of the problem have increased exponentially since my noble friend started her campaign and those rebuttals are no longer valid. A much larger number of people with mini-jobs are affected as a result of the growing use of zero and short-hours contracts, where workers have little or no control over the hours they may be offered in any one week. The Office for National Statistics estimates that 250,000 people worked on zero-hours contracts between October and December 2012. However, its survey relied on people understanding that they were on zero-hours contracts, and the ONS has conceded that that may well have resulted in the true figure being substantially understated and that it may be much higher. The ONS is now running a survey to,
“obtain robust data directly from employers”.
As my noble friend said, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development suggested that up to 1 million people—around 3% to 4% of workers in the UK—are on zero-hours contracts.
The zero-hour mini-job problem is now systemic in nature. According to the Government’s workplace employment relations survey, in 2011 23% of workplaces with 100 or more employees used zero-hours contracts. Surveys reveal sector concentrations too: 61% of domiciliary care workers in England were employed on zero-hours contracts; and Unite and others report a high incidence in low-paying sectors such as the docks, retail, catering and social care, and they are not restricted by age. These workers face weekly insecurity in hours and pay and many are not building up entitlement to national insurance benefits. The DWP and the Government will have to address a problem that now has scale, is systemic and does not interface with the national insurance system.
When launching his consultation on zero-hours contracts, the Secretary of State, Vince Cable, said:
“It is clear that they are much more widely used than we had previously thought”,
and further that:
“Our aim through this consultation is to find which options best prevent any abuse of zero hours contracts while maximising the opportunity and flexibility such contracts can present”.
This suggests he believes these contracts will be a widespread and sustained phenomenon. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, in his normal straightforward manner in Committee when responding to my noble friend Lord Browne, recognised the growing evidence of zero-hours contracts. He said that,
“the Government have estimated their costings and needs, on the basis that it is a tiny minority”,
and that this basis,
“will be undermined. He certainly makes me even more uneasy about the neglect of this group than I was before we discussed the issue today”.—[Official Report, 18/12/13; col. GC 332.]
Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting this amendment I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lady Hollis. I know that she has marshalled the arguments and found the evidence, which she has advanced with authority and passion. Nevertheless, in this debate I seek to reinforce two points that I feel strongly about. First, all the evidence tells us that many people will be adversely affected by not having national insurance credits, not only while they are in work but, most importantly for this Bill, when they move into retirement. Secondly, for too long we have known that this situation is occurring, but we have made the excuse that not many people are in mini-jobs. That argument no longer holds good. We are told that they are here today and gone tomorrow, so we have avoided tackling the problem.
We must remind ourselves that the economy is changing. It is more demanding and is now a truly 24/7 economy which has to be serviced, so those who are affected by the Government’s lack of effort to find a solution to the problem are hard-working people who deserve not just our praise, but our recognition that they, too, should enjoy the same rights and security as others. The answer we have received so far is that they are only part-timers, although it is recognised that many are earning less than the lower earnings limit. The evidence tell us that many are on low pay and that people have not just one mini-job, but two or even three of them under so-called variable contracts spread over five, six or seven days a week. More than that, although they are in work, they are insecure and many have no knowledge of what they will be expected to do next week or the week after. They suffer the inconvenience of not being able to plan their lives and look after their families. People in mini-jobs are doing what the Government have asked us all to do—to be flexible—but of course flexibility in this instance does not provide the security of universal credit or jobseeker’s arrangements. In fact, these people are being penalised for doing exactly what is required to maintain a stable and robust economy. In reality, this group of people should enjoy a system of deferred credits as they are making themselves ready for work for when the economy gathers momentum, as we all know it will.
I said earlier that we have not tackled this problem because we believe that not many workers are involved, but the numbers have been played down. The DWP states that 50,000 people are affected, and this figure has been widely cited by Ministers in both Houses. However, as my noble friend Lady Hollis set out so clearly in her evidence, that figure of 50,000 is a gross underestimate of the number of people in so-called mini-jobs. I suggest that anyone who doubts the number of people involved visits the interchange at Bank DLR at around 5 pm on any working day. Thousands of financial sector workers flow off the DLR only to be replaced by thousands of cleaners and maintenance workers flowing back to service the offices of Canary Wharf and elsewhere in east London. However, that is not the end of their day. Many return later at night to clean hotels and shops. This can be seen wherever there are offices, factories, shops and restaurants in the towns or cities of the United Kingdom. It is a universal pattern of work that has evolved in the past half decade.
I understand that it has been said that providing fairness to people in mini-jobs will add to the work and put considerable stress on employers, and that the computerised systems of government departments cannot cope with the strain. The technological strain is nothing compared with the mental strain and insecurity of the people who are trapped in these so-called mini-jobs. The DWP and HMRC can resolve this problem. All that is needed is some joined-up thinking. They can resolve it, because we are talking about the lives of thousands of people and about fairness. If they are not provided for today while at work, society will have the responsibility and duty to provide for them in retirement.
In seeking to tackle in-work poverty, the Government are rightly proud of raising the tax threshold incrementally to those earning £10,000. However, what is the point of seeking to tackle the scourge of in-work poverty through the tax threshold system by creating poverty in old age through the Pensions Bill? There is not much point at all. In the past, Ministers have argued that this problem of crediting people with multi-jobs may place a burden on employers. The price of not placing a burden on employers is the price of placing a burden on the whole of society in the years ahead, as some of these workers become pensioners. With part-time working and zero-hour contracts on the increase, this is a reasonable expectation for any civilised society to place on them.
In the lexicon of today’s employment pattern, we hear the language of “mobility”, “flexibility” and “creativity”, but for the economy to thrive and deliver its full potential, management too must break out of its silo mentality and be creative and flexible in its ideas, as it seeks to determine how a reward package can and should be made, to ensure that we provide not just for today’s but for tomorrow’s pensioners. At the very heart of this must be the transferability of national insurance credit. It is simple. All we need are the two major departments of state to sit down, have a conversation and, of course, seek knowledge based on the experience of the people who are at the receiving end of these mini-jobs.
I strongly believe that we should make policy on what is right and fair for the workers affected. By any logic, the Minister must admit that it cannot be right that someone can be unemployed and get a credit, but get nothing for having some type of work—so-called mini-jobs. These workers do not seek favours. On their behalf, I hope that this House will give them fairness.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the issues raised by this amendment are important, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, on her dedication to the issue over many years. She kindly told us in Committee how she was rebuffed by her own Government and today she repeated the argument that they used against her: one could not reasonably divvy up an employer’s national insurance—she used those words today again—if there were two or more such jobs. She further told us that women would not want to pay class 1 contributions. For that reason, this is an important issue. We are looking at people being able to contribute to their own pension and get the credits that they need to win a full pension in under 35 years.
Much of the discussion that noble Lords have heard today and in Committee has been about the way that people behave individually in response to the issues in front of them and about how people’s live are dealt with. The problem that we face is that there are no reliable statistics or evidence that show how individuals’ behaviour works. It is clearly possible—I heard it both in Committee and here today—to illustrate that in a way that works to the best of the argument that says that we need to move on this swiftly because there are so many people involved in a particular category. I do not mind people making contributions about the way people behave, will want to behave or are forced to behave, but I want to know how we can sort this problem out and do so in a realistic way that will result in a concrete outcome.
We are bound to hear more and more about zero-hours contracts. They are not a new phenomenon. Over the past 70 years, the notion of a job for life has all but disappeared. More and more people are spending time in self-employment, many people have more than one job and more people have part-time jobs. The single-tier pension itself is designed in such a way that an individual with a more varied work history will be able to build up their national insurance records to achieve the maximum state pension outcome, provided of course they get credited for their national insurance contributions.
The crucial issue, therefore, is whether universal credit will pick up and deal with this issue. I suspect that the answer given to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, when she raised this issue with her own Government, was that this is a very typically difficult issue for HMRC, given the range of information that it would require from every company in the land about who they employed and that it would have to combine the results and put them into a single file. That is of course precisely the process that is taking place, and will take place, through universal credit, which will pick up levels of flexible income including, by implication, that relating to zero-hours contracts. It is interesting that the lower earnings level, below which you do not have to pay or get credit for national insurance contributions, is £5,772 per annum at present. The Labour Force Survey figures show that those on zero-hours contracts work, on average, 20 hours a week at £9 an hour, which is enough to exceed the lower earnings limit. If the figures we have before us are to be believed, most people will be receiving enough income to receive the national insurance contribution.
The other issue about universal credit is that it will look very carefully at how it credits people and bring, as we have heard, another 800,000 people into the crediting system. For example, a single person without savings, earning below that £5,772 per annum level, will be eligible for universal credit and thereby eligible for the national insurance contribution. The question that I have to ask my noble friend is about the delivery of universal credit. In Committee, the Minister said it would be delivered in 2016-17 and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said in 2019-20, although she hoped it might be earlier than that. I apologise if it was somebody else on her Benches but those are the sorts of span. If we believe my noble friend, and it is 2016-17, will this problem be dealt with from the outset by those who are then brought into the universal credit system? If that is the timetable, I ask noble Lords to consider how long it would take to put in the interim solution. In effect, what is being asked for is an interim solution between now and when universal credit comes in for a pensions system that comes into play in 2016.
What is the interim position? Do we need to ask HMRC to invent a system for itself? When the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked the Labour Government for one in their time, they rejected it. I believe they said that it would be cumbersome and expensive. Do we need to have that in place or could we be reassured that, almost within the very short period of the implementation of the single-tier pension, universal credit will be in place in a sufficient and timely position so that the vast majority of people who are occupying two or more jobs that produce an income over a year of less than £5,772 at the current rates will be able to be credited? That is the key question.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I did not participate in Committee but I am listening to my noble friend’s carefully constructed argument. Is not the point about this amendment that it is permissive? It simply provides the Government with an alternative; it does not oblige them to do anything. I cannot really understand why my noble friend is opposing the amendment while advancing that argument.
Lord German
It is because we have a response in place, which is the universal credit system. What matters more than anything is that the system is in place in time to capture the people who will be most affected by this in the implementation years, from 2016 onwards. That is the fundamental question and I await the answer in my noble friend’s response.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment—and, having listened to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord German, I am delighted that I do not have to answer the questions that he posed. I suspect that the noble Lord who is the Minister for Welfare Reform had wanted to avoid having to give a date as to when the universal credit system will be functioning well enough to provide the sort of functionality that the noble Lord, Lord German, seems to think that the alternative to this amendment requires. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response and write down any date that he gives us in relation to that. It is also a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Morris, who speaks with significant experience of, and great authority about, the workings of the modern labour market, and who has assisted us greatly in understanding the need for this amendment.
As my noble friend said, this issue was debated in the Commons and in Committee at some length. I have considered carefully the various government responses, as my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lady Drake clearly have. They are to be congratulated for having produced here what could be described as an elegant, permissive, statutory device that adds to the Minister’s armoury in his desire,
“to seize this issue head-on”.—[Official Report, 18/12/13; col. GC 328.]
He used that phrase in our debate when he expressed equal concern—the words are mine—as the rest of us about this issue. I believed, as did all those who were present debating the issue, that he shared our concerns. Indeed, in his contribution to the debate he indicated why he had come to that conclusion.
In support of the arguments that I set out in my own contribution in Grand Committee, I simply want to make three points today. First, the phenomenon of people working in two or more low-earning jobs is not a limited one. They are often on zero-hours contracts but certainly on short hours, with each job under the level at which national insurance contributions are made, and are therefore not building up a contributions record towards the state pension. Nor indeed is it a temporary phenomenon, as has been argued, often coming at the end of a working life. Nor is it an experience limited to rural communities, although it is very prevalent there.
Since I shared the content of my overheard conversation on the Transport for London overground train, I have consciously inquired of young people whom I meet in this city and back home in Scotland how many of them are working for more than one employer. For noble Lords who have not heard this short anecdote, I will repeat it. A few days before we debated this matter in Committee, I overheard a conversation among three young people on an overground train as I was making my way home from your Lordships’ House. It was very clear to me that they had all been working together in what I suppose we would call a mini-job and that they each had two other jobs.
What was significant about them was that two were graduates and the third certainly had a tertiary level of education. I found that surprising. I do not know why I found it surprising, but it caused me to inquire the same of other young people, and I have come to the view that this is the norm for thousands of young people in the first phase of their employed life, even for graduates. It is a significant feature of a flexible labour market and, along with zero-hours contracts, it is part of the reason that politicians, particularly Ministers, and employers celebrate its flexibility. Undoubtedly the number of people in this situation is growing, not declining.
The question of numbers leads me to repeat a point I made in Grand Committee, which has already been made by my noble friends. The Government assert that there are about 50,000 people in this category. I am not convinced by their estimate of the scale of the problem. That is based not on my experience but on evidence that has already been referred to. We await the outcome of the—I think still anticipated—BIS consultation on zero-hours contracts, which was promised in October and is due to report by the end of March, but I have not seen a lot of evidence of it. We should reflect on the fact that in the fourth quarter of 2012, the ONS estimated that there were 250,000 people on zero-hours contracts. However, a contemporaneous survey of employers by the CIPD estimated that in fact the figure was around 1 million.
As we have heard, the union Unite estimates that as many as 5.5 million people are employed on such contracts up and down the UK. Following the CIPD estimate, the ONS conceded that the Labour Force Survey, which is based on responses by individuals, more than likely understated the numbers. The ONS then announced, as my noble friends have told your Lordships’ House, that it would change the way it collected its data from autumn 2013,
“so as to obtain more robust data”.
The importance of this contradictory information is not that it goes directly to the heart of the estimate from the Government, but that clearly it must have informed the Government’s estimate. None of the estimates that the Government have for the scale of this problem is at all reliable. Therefore, your Lordships cannot be convinced that a strategy based on unreliable statistics is a reliable strategy.
Finally, the Government’s responses appear complacent. Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister, suggested in the Commons that there was only a tenuous link between having multiple jobs below the LEL and being unable to build up the required 35 years’ contributions, and referred to this problem as a temporary phenomenon. In our debates in Grand Committee, the Minister promised that universal credit would resolve the issue. The noble Lord, Lord German, has already gone through the pros and cons of that in some detail, and my noble friend Lady Hollis significantly undermined that argument by pointing out the categories of people who are in these jobs who would be denied universal credit in the first place and therefore the consequent crediting of national insurance contributions.
I say with respect to the noble Lord, Lord German, that that is the one point of our argument that he did not engage with. Even if universal credit is the answer for some of those people, it cannot be the answer for all people in this category, and in the absence of reliable statistics, it is not easy to see what proportion of people would benefit from a universal credit system that met the coincidence of engagement with the challenge that the noble Lord, Lord German, set out.
What do we need? We need an alternative. We can have no confidence that the approach of either the Pensions Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will be sufficient. If it is not, the net effect will not only be to deny access to the modern pension system to a significant number of people, most of whom will be the least well paid working people in our society. As the numbers grow—and they will—it will also, in the long term, severely undermine the pensions policy that is now agreed across your Lordships’ House, because it will increase the number of people who have to depend on means testing in retirement.
We support the amendment tabled by my noble friend. We want to make it clear that this is a solution for now, in the context of the Bill. We hope the amendment will be agreed and will become law. It will then be for the Government to take it away and for the Minister to seize the opportunity to use it to address the issue head-on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for the amendment which gives an opportunity to debate again a most important issue which is close to her heart and with which I am sympathetic. Over the years we have had quite a few discussions on how the issue is best addressed.
Single-tier reforms strengthen the contributory principle and reduce disparities in outcomes between individuals. They are designed to fit with the working lives of today’s young people, who should find it much easier to plan for the future, counting on a full single-tier pension. At first glance, it may appear that the national insurance treatment of those in low-paying mini-jobs is at odds with these principles. However, I would like to explain why we think mini-jobs are not the problem they might seem to be and why, looking at how to adjust the national insurance system to combat this perceived problem, we may end up with solutions which create more problems and knock-on impacts than they solve.
The noble Baroness has been as assiduous as always in exploring all the sources to illustrate her case for change. Her central estimate was that 250,000 people would be affected. I continue to be confident in the department’s estimate of the number who—if we were to aggregate their earnings in the way proposed—would gain that extra qualifying year. That number is some 50,000 at any one time, which is fewer than one in 500 workers. This number makes perfect sense when you look at the opportunities the national insurance system provides for gaining state pension qualifying years. The entry point for workers is through the lower earnings limit, which is set at £109 a week. This is £40 below the primary threshold which is when national insurance starts to be paid. At the national minimum wage, this is just 18 hours a week for a year or six months of full-time work. There is also a comprehensive crediting system that recognises caring responsibilities and those unable to work.
The 50,000 figure is a snapshot from 2012-13 and individuals may gain a qualifying year in other years. In the single-tier system, full pension entitlement is achieved after someone has built up 35 qualifying years. People can therefore spend a third of their working lives outside the national insurance system and still gain the full single-tier amount. This was a deliberate part of our design, to recognise that people have increasingly varied careers and working lives, and yet can still reasonably count on a full single-tier pension in their retirement planning.
My noble friend Lord German inquired about the timetable for the introduction of universal credit. We are planning to pull that in for the bulk of people, virtually everyone, in 2016 and 2017. That would certainly include everyone in the workforce. The numbers beyond that are some of the people who are currently on ESA on a long-term basis in the support section.
If we were to take a similar snapshot to that of the 50,000 in 2012-13 but in 2017, we would find that individuals with the same characteristics may well be getting a credit through universal credit. This will bring at least a further 800,000 people into national insurance credits. For instance, the partner of the claimant or those on very low earnings—below the lower earnings limit—will be brought into universal credit because the Government believe that it should pay to work.
We have had a parallel discussion on zero hours, which has clearly been a source of concern around the Chamber today. There is concern at one level from the employment practices perspective. As noble Lords are fully aware, BIS is consulting on this issue. There is also a degree of uncertainty around the prevalence of this practice and whether it is increasing; as noble Lords have pointed out, the ONS is looking closely at evidence for this. However, we know that the proportion of women with two or more jobs is similar to the proportion of 10 years ago; in other words, around 5% of all workers. We are not talking about using the word “exponential”, which I have heard around the Chamber once or twice this afternoon. The number of women in full-time work rose in the past year by more than 270,000, and the number of women in two jobs actually decreased in that year by 25,000.
Clearly, when we look at zero-hours contracts, I need to make the point to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that I did not indicate in Committee, nor have I indicated, that the number of individuals on those contracts was small or in some way insignificant. However, the question at hand here is about access to the national insurance system and there is no evidence to suggest that being on this type of contract presents barriers to entering the national insurance system because of low pay.
Figures from the Labour Force Survey and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—the CIPD—both show that those on zero-hour contracts work an average of around 20 hours a week, as my noble friend Lord German pointed out. This is enough to exceed the lower earnings limit even on the national minimum wage of £6.31 an hour. Data from the ONS suggest that the average wage for those on a zero-hours contract is nearer £200 a week. In response to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, the Labour Market Statistics show that full-time employment in the year is up 408,000, and part-time employment has gone down by 12,000.
I understand that the amendment is permissive, and even without any evidence of a significant problem one might think it would be helpful to increase the Government’s options in this respect. However, it is simply not necessary, given the extensive regulation-making powers already available, to modify the crediting system. In response to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, it is hardly useful to have redundant legislation on the books.
This amendment would allow people to opt in to have their earnings aggregated. It is not clear that this can be achieved without requiring a very high evidence base. For instance, if we introduced a system where people could effectively send in the employee’s rate of national insurance, we introduce incentives for employers to play the system. Some will contrive to avoid employers’ national insurance but without disturbing their employees’ national insurance position. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested that the employer need not pay national insurance. However, even if that were the case there is still a significant burden on the employer. We also could not verify the wages without disproportionate cost. This would incentivise people to underreport earnings to get into the system on the cheap.
Aggregating earnings would have significant consequences for employers, including those people who would not now consider themselves to be employers. Take, for instance, the position of a woman whose job it is to clean private houses for a few hours each day of the week. The nature of the work would mean that she is likely to be employed and could have a number of jobs with different households. Under aggregation, each of those households would need to operate a Pay As You Earn scheme. They would need to contact HMRC to open such a scheme. They would then need to obtain and familiarise themselves with payroll software and use it to report earnings under real-time information to HMRC every time they pay their cleaner.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, on joined-up thinking between the DWP and HMRC, I am pleased to say that we are actually working—I suspect for the first time—in a very joined-up way to get the RTI system to work. However, we do not want to require employers who would otherwise not have to have a PAYE scheme to open one up on an ad hoc basis. The point discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which would allow people to class themselves as self-employed, seems slightly odd given the concern about job security that motivates the debate we have just had over zero-hours contracts. Blurring the line between employment and self-employment is a minefield from a tax policy perspective. It introduces incentives to create more mini-jobs and to play the system.
The processes required to capture and collate earnings from people in mini-jobs cannot be achieved by simply tweaking the system. Moving to the aggregation of earnings from mini-jobs can only sensibly be considered under the work on the operational integration of income tax and national insurance contributions announced at Budget 2011 by the Chancellor. As noble Lords will be aware, national insurance liability is calculated on a per job basis but income tax liability is aggregated across all sources of earnings so the issues are similar. The Government concluded that given the scale of the change that operational integration would entail and the amount of change that employers are already managing, including the introduction of real-time information, they would await further progress on these before moving forward on tax/national insurance integration.
In the short term, we are not complacent and are determined that people who do the right thing and work are treated fairly. Beyond a radical overhaul of state pensions in this part of the Bill, specifically to make it fit for today’s workers, I have described work that this Government have undertaken to expand crediting coverage for low earners through universal credit and improving monitoring of zero-hours contracts.
This amendment may be intended to place a marker to nudge the Government into taking action, but it comes without strong evidence of a problem and the type of action that it promotes is piecemeal tinkering, which could create perverse outcomes and new unfairnesses, especially in the tax and national insurance system. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, first, I thank very much my noble friends Lady Drake and Lord Morris for their powerful and moving speeches. I thought that their contributions were extraordinarily impressive, and I am sure that they moved many people in this House.
I shall address first the comments of the noble Lord, Lord German, many of whose points were dealt with very effectively by my noble friend Lord Browne from the Front Bench. Basically, he ran two arguments. First, he said that most of the people concerned would be on UC, and he pressed the Minister instead on UC. Secondly, he commented on the problems for HMRC in combining possible jobs. On the first argument, on UC—and I am very much in favour of universal credit—we agree the statistics are that another 800,000 should come into the NI system as a result of crediting arrangements. That is great, but the point is that UC is income-based and that income is surprisingly low. No one has mentioned that today. For example, if you are a single person and you earn more than £4,000 a year in any job, well below the lower earnings limit, you are above the level for universal credit so you do not get credited in. If you are a married woman, your husband is in work and you have two children—I am aiming for a generic family, if you like—and if he is earning more than £12,000 a year, that family is not entitled to UC, apart from housing benefit. She may be earning £4,000 or £5,000, but that will not give her a credit through him. Those two groups of single people and married women, which my noble friend identified and I seek to identify, are both outside the reach of UC. What is worse—and neither the Minister nor the noble Lord, Lord German, mentioned this—is that it is happening at the same time as we are withdrawing the married woman’s dependency pension of 60% that she would have had as an alternative and could have relied on. That is what is new. If she cannot get into the pensions system through universal credit, she cannot get in at all, and that has been created and constructed by this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that he was confident of his figures of 50,000 people, but he was equally confident about two years ago when we were debating welfare reform and the figures then were 20,000 or 25,000. They have doubled exponentially in the past two years or so, and they may go on to grow equally geometrically, as opposed to arithmetically, over the next few years. He says that his statistics are broadly in line, but I do not know about that. His statistics are based on labour force statistics offered by the ONS, which the ONS now says are unreliable; that therefore means that his statisticss are unreliable. My statistics of 250,000 are the best that I can do with all the evidence there is, overlaying different subsets. I accept that, but I am as confident as I can be on the evidence that exists that at least 250,000 people and maybe more—it is an increasing problem—are outside the national insurance system and will not be credited in either through UC or any caring responsibilities.
The noble Lord quoted average income. An average income is pulled upwards by the proportion of people who work in IT, for example, which is highly paid, or in further education, where they are paid piecemeal. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—which the Minister quoted several times, although he did not quote this—says that 40% of the 1 million people who are employed work below 16 hours per week. We know that the majority of those are on, or on around, the minimum wage: for example, in jobs in domiciliary care, hotels, waiting, driving or security. A mean average is no use in this, because the figures are skewed hugely upwards by people in IT, who may be very well paid—perhaps at £50 per hour—and come within zero-hour contracts. We need to see how many people are below the LEL in one job and work in a second job that is also below the LEL, which together would bring them into the NI system from which they are currently excluded. I repeat: that figure is likely to be 250,000—nearly every single person and most married women.
The Minister says that it would produce all sorts of perversities and paradoxes. There is no greater perversity than the situation in which, if you are unemployed and on JSA, you are credited in for free national insurance, but if you work 30 hours a week in two 15-hour jobs, earn £11,000 and pay tax, you cannot get into the NI system and get no state pension. Which of those is the perversity? Do not work and you are in for free; or work as best you can, by putting jobs together, and you are outside the system. Is that right or decent? It is not. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) A person is not entitled to bereavement support payment and is exempt from work conditionality as specified in section 30(1A), if he or she has reached pensionable age.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I should like first to say a word about procedure. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in her place; that is helpful. This is a paving amendment that the Public Bill Office assures me is appropriate. Amendment 21 in this group—and only Amendment 21—is consequential on Amendment 2. Therefore, any vote on the first amendment is, in the words of the Companion, also a vote on its directly consequential amendment—although it does not, of course, determine any other amendments in the group. If it were not directly consequential there would be no point in a paving amendment. As I have carefully taken the clerk’s advice on this, I hope that the Minister and the House will agree with my statements. If the Minister does not agree that Amendment 21 is consequential, perhaps he could indicate so now because I would not wish to waste the House’s time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am grateful to the noble Lord, as this allows us to have a substantive discussion on bereavement—which I know concerns many of your Lordships—in good time and not in the late hours this evening. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the situation of distressed children and widowed parents. I hope that I can refer generally to widows, as there are three times as many women who are bereaved with children as men—and I know that the Minister means well by them. I hope that the House will agree that this is neither a party matter nor, as it is permissive, a cost matter, as the cost is almost too low to estimate.
This is a modest amendment that seeks to help widowed persons avoid additional pressure in the most stressful and distressing period of their lives. Three-fifths of bereaved parents are in work at the time of bereavement—virtually all fathers and around half or so of mothers. Most fathers with a terminally ill wife continue, or continued, to work. Most mothers, however, give up their jobs to care for their husband. Fathers would normally go back to work after a couple of weeks; indeed, they are often anxious to do so. Some mothers may feel able to do so as well, depending on the age of their children and the nature of their job. However, many widowed mothers were not in work, because they had younger children, or they had stopped working to become carers and—this is key—many mothers who were in work when their husband died drop out of work for some time while they support their children. If they return to work later, it may be to a different job, to one that is part-time or less demanding. Whereas work seems to be essential and continuous for fathers, it becomes secondary and broken for bereaved mothers.
The Government are reconstructing bereavement benefits, with more money paid as an up-front lump sum and less as a monthly payment—which, at £400 a month, will be paid only for 12 months and topped up by universal credit while the claimant is out of work. After 12 months, bereavement support payments stop and, if the parent does not return to work, she may draw her full income from UC. Being on UC normally entails work conditionality—entering or re-entering the labour market. The Minister has agreed—for which I am delighted—that for kinship carers, work conditionality associated with claiming UC should not apply for 12 months after they have taken on the care of children. But—and this is the point of my amendment—work conditionality for widowed parents, unlike for kinship carers, will kick in after six months, not 12 months, while they are still on bereavement benefit. That benefit runs for 12 months precisely because the Minister, in all decency—and I respect him for it—recognises that they need that support for 12 months. Surely work conditionality should be aligned with those 12 months.
The Minister said in Committee that he thought that six months’ relief from work conditionality while on bereavement allowance, if the claimant receives some UC top-up, was “generous”. I confess that that shocked me. It is generous only by comparison with the situation of someone who is not a bereaved spouse, and I think that that is not a proper comparison. If the mother has returned to work, or wants help to do so earlier than that—and some will—that is fine, but I do not think it right and decent to require her to attend work interviews and full work conditionality and job-hunting after six months, when she has grieving children who need her more than ever.
In Committee, the Minister justified this by saying that work conditionality after six months,
“is necessary to help them adjust and regain control of their lives”.—[Official Report, 15/1/14; col. GC 146.]
I was shocked by that as well. From my experience, the exact opposite is true. If work conditionality kicks in at six months while the woman is still on bereavement benefits and she is not ready for it, she loses what little control she has in handling her family life. Instead, that power is transferred to the DWP—perhaps to a 23 year-old young man in a local benefit office who, I expect, will be well intentioned until the pressure of targets bears down on him. He is probably a young man without children and without any experience of bereavement. It is assumed that he knows better than she does what is best for her and her children in their grief. I hope that he asks his own mother for advice, because he probably will not have a clue.
I do not think that that is acceptable. We are turning this young man at the age of 23 into her parent and treating her as the child, denying her, as a parent, the ability to look after her children in the way she believes is best. This is a sort of cruel-to-be-kind, tough-love philosophy towards a grieving widow and severely distressed children. Tough love is perhaps fine for youngsters who are on JSA and do not want to get up in the morning, but we are bullying into seeking work a widow with children who is still numb with grief and hugely distressed. We really cannot have that.
In this paving amendment and the consequential amendment attached to it I am not arguing that a widow’s benefit should be increased, although personally I would support that. The amendment is not about more money; it is about allowing widows to decide what is best for them and their family in the immediate aftermath of bereavement. For me, the immediate aftermath is the first year during which all the anniversaries occur—Christmas, his birthday and the anniversary of his death. I know, as do many of your Lordships, that that first year is the hardest.
I ask your Lordships to put themselves in the widow’s place. Her husband’s death may have been sudden, due to an accident at work or in the car, and she is still traumatised by the shock, or he may have died after an illness such as a stroke or cancer and she is exhausted through caring for him. She is wiped out and her mental and physical health is pretty fragile. It is just at this time when, although she is exhausted herself, her children are distraught and most need her. Children I know who have experienced the death of a parent have regressed into bed-wetting, nightmares, broken sleep and school phobia. They have lots of mysterious tummy aches and frequent headaches, and they display challenging and clearly needy behaviour. Irrationally, they suffer anguish that in some way they were responsible for their father’s death. They feel guilty that they had never told the lost parent how much they loved him and are fearful that they may lose their mother as well.
Older children worry about their mother’s safety if she is late back, or they fear they may lose their home. They are profoundly upset a second time over at their mother’s grief. Stoically they try not to weep, as that makes it harder for her to cope. “He is not here to hug me”, said one young girl. They dream of him and experience severe depression. Children need their surviving parent to be physically available for them. They need the trust that exists between a child and his mother to discuss their father’s death. Emotional availability follows from that. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord German, quoted very movingly from research into the effect of bereavement on children’s later lives, from delinquency to poor mental health and suicide risk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned cases of multiple deaths.
Every family is different, as is the work status of any bereaved parent, but this amendment, at no cost, permits the bereaved parent to decide what is appropriate for her and her family. We know that currently, bereaved parents do not take all the time off that they could from work. They do not exploit the system; they do not abuse it; they do not milk it. They want to work when they feel fit enough and their children are steady enough, but only they know that, not the DWP or the local benefit office. That is the point of having 12 months of bereavement payments. Insisting on work interviews and work conditionality at six months, or even leaving it to the discretion of 23 year-olds in local offices, adds stress to the suffering of the parent and distress to the pain of the child. We really should not do that.
The amendment would give widowed parents a breathing space from work conditionality alongside a bereavement payment while they rebuild their fractured lives. This House has always looked out for widows and children and I hope that it will do so again today. I beg to move.
Lord Freud
My Lords, the House may find it helpful to know that, although I do not agree that a change to conditionality in respect of only this specific group of amendments is appropriate, I am proposing to conduct a wider review into the circumstances where children could be in considerable distress and where it is clear that conditionality should not be applied. I am not attempting to curtail debate but it may be of advantage to the House to have that information in order that we may have a more informed debate on this group of amendments.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendments 18, 19 and 20 in this group. I am grateful to the Minister for informing us of his proposal to hold a review of the level at which conditionality is set in relation to considerable distress in bereaved children. I appreciate his concern and the time that he has spent with me and others in looking at the problems of bereaved children.
However, I must point out that bereaved children express emotions differently from adults. Indeed, the most distressed children often appear almost blunted to the death of the parent and are simply quiet, withdrawn and can even appear disinterested. I hope that there will be no attempt to assess an individual child’s distress because I can foresee the problem of some families blaming that child for not caring enough, and therefore blaming that child for somehow not falling into a group that could have had more benefit. Sadly, transference occurs in bereavement and sometimes bereaved parents project their anger at the death on to the way in which the bereaved child is behaving and are on a very short fuse with the child, which compounds that child’s isolation. These are complex situations and there are serious long-term sequelae.
When a parent dies the support that the state offers must be easy to understand. It must support the widowed parent in providing support to their grieving children. Noble Lords are well aware that the death of a parent places enormous pressure on the rest of the family. The surviving parent has to both provide stability to children and adjust to life as the sole carer and earner while dealing with their own grief as well as that of their children. Quite often they have had no time to begin to adjust to impending widowhood—for example, in any sudden death, whether it is through a road accident, manslaughter, murder, suicide or whatever—and yet their children’s need for stability following the death of a parent makes it vital that the surviving parent is available to them, is present and is able to respond to their needs, which may change almost from minute to minute, hour to hour.
Stopping payments after only one year will have a significant impact on family finances but the major disruptions include the widowed parent often having to increase their working hours to replace lost income, thereby being less available to the children at the time when they are most in need of support. Amendment 18 seeks to increase the period of time that the bereavement support payment is payable to at least three years or until the youngest child has reached the age of seven, whichever is the longest period.
Can the Minister clarify the cost analysis that underpins the decision to end bereavement support payment after only one year, because one year is much too short to address a family’s needs? Removing the payment at the first anniversary of the death adds an additional pressure on the family at a time that is already very emotionally difficult when they often relive the acute episode surrounding the bereavement. Many families report that the second and subsequent years following bereavement are even harder than the first because support from friends and family tends to disappear and children can experience late effects of dealing with grief and bereavement.
The current allowance is paid until the youngest child leaves full-time education. The proposal to reduce this to a period of just one year is a dramatic change. Data provided by the Childhood Bereavement Network suggest that only one family in 28—that is, 4%—claims for less than one year. Most families would therefore receive payments under this Bill for a much, much shorter time than they would under current arrangements, especially if the children are younger. In Committee I described the shortening of this period of time as cruel. A year is a very short time in the life of those bereaved, whether adult or child.
The current benefit is paid until children leave full-time education in recognition partly of the complex emotional needs of young children. Removing the payment when the dependent children are very young is particularly worrying. Pre-school children become very clingy when they realise that one parent is no longer around. They require stability and security. The grief of losing a parent is challenging enough without compounding the disruption caused by the stress of worsened financial hardship for the surviving parent with the premature ending of a bereavement support payment.
Amendment 19 seeks to clarify that the bereavement support payment will be payable to a widow who is pregnant at the time of her spouse’s death. Can the Minister confirm that when the spouse of a pregnant woman dies the allowance would be payable to her? Amendment 20 seeks to clarify what support would be offered in the tragic event of both parents dying. Can the Minister confirm that in the event that both parents die, the guardian of the surviving children under the age of 18 will be eligible for any bereavement support payment which would have been paid to a surviving parent had that parent not died, and that the guardian has six months in which to lodge the claim? Can the Minister also confirm that the changes to the bereavement support payment do not affect the guardian’s allowance? Finally, can the Minister confirm that changes to the bereavement support payment do not affect child benefit?
Lord Rix (CB)
My Lords, I cannot claim to be either a young widow or to have young children. My children are actually middle-aged but my wife died a year ago last week and I know perfectly well that a year is really not sufficient time to put to one side all the problems which arise from the death of a partner. I was married for 64 years and, both for my children—middle-aged as they may be—and for me, the grief continues. I know perfectly well that if you are a young widow with young children, to be asked to change your life or to look at the possibility of going into work after six months is absolutely absurd. I support both these amendments with all my heart.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I am sure that the House will want to reach a conclusion on this debate as soon as possible, but as treasurer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children I would like to express my strong support for Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I also pay tribute to the Minister for the care with which he has clearly been considering this very sensitive matter. That does not surprise me given that his great-aunt, Anna Freud, set up the Hampstead War Nurseries towards the end of the Second World War. She dealt with children who had been separated from their parents and provided them with much needed care. She also made forensic observations of what happens when a child is separated from the parent, looking at the different sequelae of those changes. What she discovered was that while she could feed the children well and provide exercise so that they were healthier, the emotional damage done to them as a result of being separated from their parents was simply huge. The concern must be that if widowed parents are not well supported and given all necessary consideration they may emotionally withdraw from their children, with all the adverse consequences highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord German, in Grand Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, having been one of the signatories, along with 26 other Anglican bishops, to the letter that went to the Daily Mirror last week, I am loath to speak too much about amendments to government legislation. However, on this particular occasion, because bereavement support is such a notable part of our business and ministry, I am very bothered about the direction in which the legislation is going.
I should like to reinforce what was said earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about cost. It seems to me that it is not a question of cost but of how long support is given to people. What many clergy learn and what people often forget is that, as the noble Baroness said, it is not just the first three months which are difficult—the problems continue throughout the whole of the first year. More than that, it is a matter of showing support for people over the whole period of time that the emotional pain of bereavement continues to be very severe. The issue of supporting people financially has an impact on that emotional pain.
Speaking on behalf of a group of people who spend so much of their time trying to support those who have been bereaved and who need to understand how they can be helped, we might take good note of these amendments. They will not cost more money. They have been tabled simply to try to offer more support over a longer period of time—not only in the raw first year, but over the first three or four years, and particularly where young children are involved and the emotional impact is even greater.
Lord German
My Lords, these are delicate and sensitive issues. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for using her ingenuity to make sure that these issues are right at the forefront of our discussion on Report. The major issues have already been raised and were expressed from these Benches both at Second Reading and in Committee. The evidence I quoted from the research literature on these matters identifies absolutely clearly that one needs to be extremely careful when dealing with these very difficult times for families. Indeed, what we should recognise is that some people may be able to regain a sense of normality more rapidly than others. You cannot make a distinction or see clear lines between one family and another. It seems that this is very much about the circumstances in which people find themselves and how those positions are managed and handled. The issues raised by these amendments have to be a source of major concern to Members on these Benches, and as I say, they were raised earlier.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Freud for giving us an opportunity to discuss these matters in considerable detail between the Committee stage and today, and to help shape a Government response which adequately meets the concerns expressed. An adequate response from the Government has to satisfy the discussion we had in Committee and be highly relevant to the issues already raised today in this Chamber about these sensitive matters, particularly relationships within families. I want to see a process that meets the issues and was raised in that evidence. This is what I want to challenge and talk to my noble friend about.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am not surprised, having sat through Committee, that this has been such a powerful debate. We have had some very important, moving and well informed speeches at all stages of the Bill touching on these subjects. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for sharing their expertise in these areas, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for being willing to share with us the experience of bereavement and its ongoing impact on one’s life at any age.
My noble friend Lady Hollis laid out the case very strongly at the outset. I am delighted that the Minister is interested in reviewing the impact on families with a distressed child and how that relates to conditionality in the future. It is an excellent commitment and I look forward to seeing the results of it. It is up to my noble friend Lady Hollis to make a judgment on this but I do not think that that in any way precludes the need for this amendment, which is about a very specific category of person—people who are bereaved and who may find themselves going on to claim universal credit but who would normally be expected to go out to work because they had children of school age. Both of those things are important.
I still have with me the very powerful speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby at Second Reading, in which he laid out his experience of pastoral care for the bereaved, something reprised very effectively today by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield. I do not need to say very much more about why this matters. Many Members of this House have had experience of bereavement in one way or another and there can be few more important issues than how a country supports its citizens when the worst of all possible things happens to them.
The Government’s case throughout this debate has been that these bereavement reforms are not really about money. From 2016 to 2020, they estimate the changes will cost an extra £110 million, because they will protect payments under the current system, but that thereafter, in total, there will be small savings. The argument is that these are reforms not cuts. The Government have said throughout that they want to simplify the system and put resources where, in their view, they are most needed: as a short-term intervention to allow a bereaved spouse or civil partner to deal with the immediate costs of the death of a partner. If support is needed in the longer term, that is what universal credit is for.
Amendments 18 to 20, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, address the question of how long bereavement support should be paid for. In Committee, the noble Baroness laid out some very moving circumstances in which families could find themselves, clearly drawing on her own clinical experience. I know that the Minister expressed sympathy with what she said, and it may be that his review of distress will address that. I would be interested to see what he has to say when he comes to speak.
Amendments 2 and 21, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hollis, quite specifically seek to relax the work conditionality requirement for those in receipt of bereavement support payment. This is particularly important for widowed parents. There is a difference between those who do not want to work and those who would like to work, or go back to work, but who have been forced to recognise that the reality of the state that their children are in is such that they have to choose—of course they will choose their children and not work, unless they have literally no choice. Some parents will need a longer period, both to adjust to their own grief and shock and to deal with the grief and shock faced by their children.
It has already been pointed out that the regulations for universal credit mean that kinship carers are exempt from work conditionality for a year from the time that they assume the care of the child. This was agreed by the Minister—under the persuasive pressure of my noble friend Lady Drake and others—in recognition of the fact that adults need time to adjust to being, effectively, a single parent. Why should the same principle not apply to bereavement? I would be very interested if the Minister could answer one question about his review: does he intend to change the regulations to allow bereaved parents specifically to be exempt from conditionality? In Committee, he said that he was reviewing this and that he wanted to change the guidance given to decision-makers in jobcentres. But that is a very different question altogether. I can see why that might be the way forward for distress in general—after all, distress comes in very different forms and some judgment would have to be made about when the family was distressed. The awful thing about bereavement is that it is horribly clear: one is either bereaved or one is not, and I therefore do not think there is a need for the kind of flexibility that might be needed in other circumstances.
I also worry because I have heard many cases, as I am sure other noble Lords have, where young jobcentre officials, with the best of intentions, ended up making bad decisions because they did not properly understand what it was like to be a single parent trying to juggle more than one child and a part-time job. That person could of course simply say, “I am sorry but despite whatever you say, I am not going back to work because I have to prioritise my children”. If that happens, their benefits get sanctioned. They can appeal, but do we really want them to have to go through that six months after losing their husband, wife or civil partner? When 58% of appeals against sanctions on jobseeker’s allowance are successful, how much are we willing to bet the farm on the effectiveness of decisions by individuals in jobcentres? In my case, it would be not very much.
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord German, used words such as “harsh” and “cruel” to describe the decision to force widowed parents back to work after six months. I believe that he was right. He cited the research, which he touched on again today, showing that outcomes for children very much depend on the effectiveness of the remaining parent in coping. That is partly about their availability to children. All that this amendment from my noble friend Lady Hollis does is to ask that those widowed parents who need to claim universal credit alongside bereavement support payment to make ends meet should not be required to go back to work for 12 months. After all, the Government have decided to focus their support on that first 12 months, so surely they should be willing simply to stretch this for the same period.
I have heard it said that a year is too long: since employers do not offer bereavement leave for a year, why should the state? It is because employers cannot do that that so many parents end up giving up their jobs when they lose their spouse or civil partner. The combination of burdens is simply too much to cope with. Universal credit is meant to be the safety net for those very parents, and it must be here. This amendment specifically recognises that the Government are planning to recycle all the resources spent on bereavement to be able to create this new system. All it does is to give them the power to recycle that money in whatever way they want, such that that reform should include this small change—that for 12 months after losing one’s husband, wife or civil partner a parent should not be forced back to work.
We should be clear that a decent society will not put bereaved children in the position of having lost one parent only to find that the other is not able to give them the level of care that they need at this crucial time. Many people in this House will know that losing a parent in childhood is a life-changing event: one never gets over it. We cannot protect children from that horror but when it happens, please let us at least say that we will support the remaining parent as best we can. It is clear that this House does not think that the Government have got this part of the Bill right. Amendments 2 and 19 give them the means and the incentive to go away and get this right. I urge the Minister to accept them.
Lord Freud
My Lords, losing a spouse is one of the most tragic circumstances that a person will have to endure and, as such, it has been recognised since the outset of the welfare system that the bereaved need some financial assistance. Bereavement benefits form a crucial part of state support but limited reforms over the years have led to a complex system, which has not kept pace with changes in the benefit system or wider changes in society. This legislation will address this. With a simple payment structure focusing support on the period immediately after the bereavement and a single contribution condition, the new bereavement support payment will be far more easily understood and claimed. It will mean that more people will benefit, particularly younger widows.
A claim to the new bereavement support payment is made by the surviving spouse or civil partner. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised those extremely tragic cases where not only is there one bereavement but the surviving spouse dies shortly afterwards. She is of course right that there can be no expectation that a claim is made by the surviving spouse in such circumstances. I take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that, as with the current benefits, there will be arrangements in place for claims to be made posthumously. Every year, the Department for Work and Pensions receives around 10 posthumous claims to bereavement benefits made on behalf of a bereaved spouse who has subsequently died. There are regulations to ensure that appropriate payment can be made in respect of these claims.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, the noble Lord has misrepresented both my amendment and my speech. I said that many parents would welcome it, but that the decision on at which point within that 12 months they returned to the labour market lay with them, not with the local benefit office.
Lord Freud
The point I am trying to make is that it is far better to recognise that individual responses to grief vary. As a number of noble Lords have said, grief often does not manifest in behavioural and emotional challenges until months or even years down the line, as a child matures. That is why, under universal credit, advisers have the flexibility to personalise requirements at any point, responding as circumstances arise. Where parents are facing difficulties with school, childcare arrangements or other extenuating circumstances, advisers can limit or even lift requirements.
I recognise that the application of that flexibility depends on the ability of those advisers. While I feel that our advisers are able, it is important to ensure that they have the best guidance and training to deal with such difficult cases. That is why we are currently working with experts in the field including the Childhood Bereavement Network, the Children’s Society, Cruse Bereavement Care, WAY and Gingerbread, to ensure that guidance and learning clearly articulate how advisers can identify and support parents in these circumstances, including the particular circumstances in which it would be inappropriate to apply conditionality. Our advisory services are also being repositioned as a profession with a clear career path, accredited learning and ongoing professional development. The learning programme will ensure that advisers have up-to-date skills to deal with any claimant interaction and support them in making relevant and appropriate decisions on an individual basis.
That is the standing position. I now move to the more specific response that I wish to make following our discussions in Grand Committee, particularly in answer to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I recognise that there are circumstances in which children could be in considerable distress and in which it is clear that conditionality should not be applied and flexibility is essential. I do not, however, see such cases as being limited to bereavement. There may be other circumstances in which children need additional care—for instance, where a family is fleeing domestic violence.
I assure the noble Baroness that we are not looking for a measure to define “distress”. Indeed, we need to establish exactly what the expression means; we are using it as a shorthand and there may be a much better way of capturing the concept, which is one of the things that a review should do. We are looking to identify specific circumstances in which we could expect a child to be distressed, and in which they will therefore have additional needs that need to be recognised. Claimants would need to demonstrate only the circumstances they are in, not the fact of distress, which is, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, extraordinarily difficult to establish.
I therefore want to conduct a review as quickly possible, in order to embed any new rules in the regime before we take new claims to universal credit from families. That is why I propose to undertake the review myself. I would like, in practice, to conclude that review by June or so. I will report back to the House following that. I am not quite sure of what form that will take but we will find the right form nearer the time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry, but why? The noble Lord has already made the judgment on kinship parents. This is a permissive amendment, which he can draw on if needed. If he does not need it because of his review he does not need to deploy it. It is there as a safety net, so why is he asking the House to make it an either/or judgment?
Lord Freud
My Lords, this is not a permissive amendment. It makes a change to the conditionality regime for one element. If I need to look at how I do a review, I would have to look again at the specific context of doing this review.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry; I crave the indulgence of the House. Let me read the substance of Amendment 21:
“The Secretary of State may by regulation and within the overall budget for bereavement support payment exempt any widowed parent from work conditionality while in receipt of said payment”.
The Secretary of State “may” do that by regulation. As I said, the amendment is permissive. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not, perhaps, fully appreciate that.
Lord Freud
My Lords, let me make my point here. I will have to look again. As noble Lords know, a “may” in this context is a very substantial “may”. I will have to look again at the context in which I would want to do something such as this. I may very well want to do it, but I cannot make a commitment to have both at this stage. On that basis, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am still slightly baffled by the less than satisfactory response of the Minister. Let me first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield and my noble friend Lady Sherlock for their very powerful and moving speeches on something that really matters: trying to protect and support widowed parents for the first 12 months of their bereavement. I welcome the Minister’s offer of a review on distress. However, what he has suggested is so wide that I rather doubt—although I would be pleased to be proven wrong—that he will be able to turn this into effective policy.
I give one tiny example, which I was thinking of as the Minister spoke. He was going to extend this to the distress of cohabiting parents when one of them dies. It is not too far fetched to suggest to the House a situation where a woman was with the father of her child or children in a cohabiting relationship but they then separated. She then had a period of perhaps five or seven years with someone else, to whom the children really connected and related. Then she moved on to a new boyfriend—a new stepfather—for perhaps the past year. Could the Minister tell me which of those three would have to die—forgive the language—for her to be entitled to bereavement benefit under the proposal of distress? Is it the recent stepfather, over whom the children are not especially distressed but the mother is highly distressed; the long-term stepfather, who has helped to bring them up, to whom the children were committed and over whom they are distressed while she is less so; or their natural father, who is giving them financial support and they see regularly? Which is it? I suspect one cannot do what the Minister seeks to do.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making the point for me. If we do these things piecemeal, we will not get the right answer. That is why my response to what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said to me in Grand Committee was to think that we need to look at this comprehensively. We need to get this issue right across the piece and understand how to incorporate it as a whole into our conditionality regime. That is the response that I am looking to do, not to sort it out on the Floor of the House where we simply do not have enough information to do it properly at this stage.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I make two points. First, we are not seeking to sort it out on the Floor of the House. I am seeking the consent of the House, if it is so minded to give it, to a permissive amendment, which does not commit the Government to anything they subsequently decide is inappropriate in the light of further research. The second point is that the Minister’s definition of distress is so wide that I genuinely believe, from my limited experience in Parliament, that he will find it very difficult indeed to turn it into deliverable policy. I am sure he is as aware as I am that it will end up depending on the discretion—he made this point himself—of local people in local benefits offices, such as the 23 year-old who will be interviewing the widowed parent. Is she numb? If so, does that mean she is coping or not caring sufficiently? Alternatively, is she voluble? Does that mean she is coping or not caring? He will have to peer into her soul and we should not go there.
The Minister says that he wants to help widowed parents to adjust, to,
“regain control of their lives”,
with tailored solutions. He is saying that the local benefits office, the 23 year-old, will decide. The 23-year old will turn her into his dependant, reliant on his judgment as to what she should do and what is best for her family. That is inappropriate and improper. You are making the adult back into a child and adding to her stress and distress. The Minister should not be going down that path. He will not be able to do it by clear policy; he will depend on discretion. Neither of those routes is satisfactory for a small and coherent group that we can easily define—that is, widowed parents with children following a bereavement.
The Minister is opposing a permissive amendment dealing with a small, specific group, which he can respond to exactly as he has already helped—and I am glad of it—kinship carers. He has allowed kinship carers 12 months off on work conditionality; he can do the same thing for this very specific group and make their work conditionality freedom align with the 12 months in which they are receiving bereavement benefit. After all, that is precisely why they have bereavement benefit in the first place. If they have it because they need support following their bereavement, at the same time they need the freedom from the additional pressure that the Minister’s work conditionality will ensure.
The Minister said that it was not quite either/or, but suggested that—
Lord Freud
My Lords, I just want to make the point that if you pick out particular groups and have legislation just for them, you end up with the kind of carbuncled benefit system that we are trying to escape from. I am determined to try to build a system that is coherent across the piece, and I want to look at all the situations to make sure that they are consistent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I understand the Minister’s support for grand schemes. We will see whether the grand scheme of universal credit, which I support, will deliver what he hopes that it does—and I hope it does. But here we are dealing with a situation in which we have kinship carers and widowed parents, and we may be talking subsequently about women experiencing distress in domestic abuse situations, and the Minister is trying to make something coherent. He is trying to fit them into one common mould, but he does not have to. He may come up with appropriate and different solutions for different groups because, as he himself said in his reply, every family is different and may need different help. This amendment would allow him to do precisely that.
The amendment does not cut across any review in any way, any more than his 12-month provision for kinship carers does. It seeks only to protect a small, identifiable and precise group from additional pressures of work conditionality at no cost at all and at a time when they and their children are most deeply distressed. I do not think that they should be put on the back burner for a review that may or may not deliver what I hope the House will think is the right path to take. If the review goes ahead and the Minister does not need the amendment, as it is permissive, he does not need to draw on it. If his review falters, which I think it will because he is asking too much of it, the amendment would give protection to some of the most vulnerable people in our country at the time of their deepest grief.
It is very simple. The amendment is permissive but says that we recognise the situation of widows and widowed parents and will give them, under the new system, one year of bereavement benefits and payments. This amendment asks for that one year, which we recognise is the period of most grief and distress, and that we should also not apply the pressure of work conditionality. This House has always looked out for widows and children, and I am asking the House to do it again today. The amendment is permissive and cost-free, and the Minister can build on it if he wishes to do the review. It is just a small safety net of help for grieving children and their grieving parent. I beg your Lordships to protect them tonight. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Ukraine, Syria and Iran
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement that the Foreign Secretary is making to the House of Commons.
“Mr Speaker, with permission I will make a Statement on the situation in Ukraine and Syria and relations with Iran.
Last week more than 80 people were killed and 600 injured during the worst bloodshed in Ukraine since the fall of communism. It was the culmination of unrest that began in November when President Yanukovych announced that the Government would not sign an EU association agreement. The House will join me in sending condolences to the families of those who died or were injured.
On Thursday I attended the emergency meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, which agreed sanctions on those responsible for the violence, as well as assistance to promote political dialogue and help for the injured.
On Friday President Yanukovych and the opposition signed an agreement, also supported by the whole European Union, and I pay tribute to my French, Polish and German colleagues for their efforts to bring this about. But events have moved rapidly since then, including the departure of President Yanukovych from Kyiv and the removal of guards from government buildings.
On Saturday the Ukrainian Parliament, the Rada, voted to restore the 2004 constitution, to release Yulia Tymoshenko, and to impeach the President. He has said that he will not step down, but it is clear that his authority is no longer widely accepted. A number of members of the previous Government have been dismissed and appointments made in a new unity Government. Rada Speaker Turchynov has been appointed acting President until early elections on 25 May.
Ukraine now has a pressing need for constitutional reform, improvements to its political culture, free elections, an end to pervasive corruption and the building of a stable political structure. We look to the new Government to create the conditions for such change and, in a spirit of reconciliation, to ensure accountability for human rights violations.
For our part, the international community must work with the new Government to discourage further violence and agree international financial support. Ukraine’s financial situation is very serious and, without outside assistance, may not be sustainable. An economic crisis in Ukraine would be a grave threat to the country’s stability and have damaging wider consequences.
I discussed this work with the German and Polish Foreign Ministers over the weekend and spoke to Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia earlier this afternoon. The Prime Minister has spoken to President Putin, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Tusk, and the Chancellor discussed Ukraine with G20 Finance Ministers in Australia. Later today I will go to Washington to discuss this and other issues with Secretary Kerry.
While in Washington I will hold talks with the International Monetary Fund, which is best placed to provide financial support and technical advice in Ukraine. Such support could be provided quickly once requested by the new Government. It requires a stable and legitimate Government to be in place and a commitment to the reforms necessary to produce economic stability. International financial support cannot be provided without conditions and clarity that it will be put to proper use.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, is visiting Kyiv today and I will visit shortly. Our fundamental interest is democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Ukraine. This is not about a choice for Ukraine between Russia and the EU; it is about setting the country on a democratic path for the future. We want the people of Ukraine to be free to determine their own future, which is what we also seek for the people of Syria.
On Saturday the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2139 on Syrian humanitarian assistance, which the United Kingdom called for and co-sponsored. This is the first resolution adopted by the Security Council on the humanitarian crisis since the start of the conflict three years ago and it was agreed unanimously. It demands an immediate end to the violence, the lifting of the sieges of besieged areas and the unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid including, importantly, across borders where necessary. It authorises the UN to work with civil society to deliver aid to the whole of Syria. It condemns terrorist attacks, demands the implementation of the Geneva communiqué leading to a political transition, and says that this transition should include the full participation of women.
The passing of this resolution is an important achievement, but it will make a practical difference only if it is implemented in full. We will now work with the United Nations and our partners to try to ensure that the regime’s stranglehold on starving people is broken.
The UK continues to set an example to the world on humanitarian assistance. Our contribution to the Syrian people now stands at £600 million: £241 million allocated for humanitarian assistance inside Syria; £265 million to support refugees in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt; and £94 million of allocations that are currently being finalised. We have pressed for other countries to do more, including at the Kuwait conference on 15 January that resulted in more than $2.2 billion in new pledges.
The Security Council resolution is a chink of light in an otherwise bleak and deteriorating situation. An estimated 5,000 Syrians are dying every month. Nearly 250,000 people remain trapped in areas under siege. The bombardment of civilian areas with barrel bombs continues unabated and there are reports of attacks with cluster munitions as well. An inquiry led by distinguished British experts reported on the photos of the bodies of around 11,000 tortured and executed Syrian detainees. Some 2.5 million Syrians are refugees in the region, 75% of them women and children. The UN expects 4 million refugees or more by the end of this year.
Against this horrifying backdrop we continue to seek a negotiated settlement to end the conflict. But there is no sign of the Assad regime having any willingness whatever to negotiate the political transition demanded by the United Nations Security Council.
The second round of Geneva II negotiations ended on 15 February without agreement on future talks. UN and Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi had proposed an agenda for a third round of talks focusing on violence and terrorism—the regime’s stated priority—and a transitional governing body, in parallel. The regime refused this. As a result the talks were suspended, with Mr Brahimi clearly laying responsibility for this at the regime’s door.
The National Coalition, by contrast, approached the negotiations constructively and in good faith. It published a statement of principles for the transitional governing body, stating that it would enable the Syrian people to decide their own future and protect the rights and freedoms of all Syrians. Those supporting the regime side, including the Russian and Iranian Governments, need to do far more to press the regime to take the process seriously and to reach a political settlement, as we have done with the opposition.
We will continue our support for the National Coalition and for civil society within Syria. We are providing £2.1 million for Syrian civil defence teams to help local communities deal with attacks, and improve the capability of local councils to save the lives of those injured and alleviate humanitarian suffering. This includes training, which is now under way, a communications campaign, and £700,000 of civil defence equipment. This includes personal radios, rescue tools, protective firefighting clothing, fire extinguishers, stretchers and individual medical kits.
The UK is also proposing a £2 million package of training, technical assistance and equipment support to build the capacity of the Free Syrian Police, working with the United States and Denmark. I have laid before Parliament a minute to approve £910,000-worth of equipment, including communications equipment, uniforms and vehicles for the Free Syrian Police. We also intend to make a contribution to the Syria Recovery Trust Fund, established by the UAE and Germany, which will focus on healthcare, water supply, energy supply and food security; and we are working with the Supreme Military Council to agree the best way of restarting our non-lethal support, which we halted temporarily in December.
The regime’s foot-dragging is also clear on the removal of chemical weapons from Syria. According to the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, only 11% of Syria’s declared chemical stockpile has so far been removed, and the regime has missed the 5 February deadline for removing all chemicals. This has delayed the destruction operation by months and puts the 30 June final destruction deadline in jeopardy. This slow rate of progress is clearly unacceptable. The UN Secretary-General and the OPCW have made it clear that Syria has all the necessary equipment to enable the movement of the chemicals. The OPCW’s director-general is pressing the Syrians to accept a plan that would see the removal of all Syrian chemicals in a considerably shorter period, enabling the 30 June deadline to be met.
Turning to Iran, the first step agreement with Iran came into force on 20 January and continues to be implemented. The E3+3 and Iran met last week to start negotiations on a comprehensive agreement aimed at ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is, and always will be, exclusively peaceful. The talks were constructive. The E3+3 and Iran agreed on the issues that need to be resolved as part of a comprehensive agreement; and in broad terms on the approach to negotiations for the coming months. The next round of talks will be in mid-March in Vienna. The E3+3 and Iran plan to meet monthly in order to make swift progress on the issues that need to be resolved in the ambitious timeframe we agreed under the November Geneva deal of implementation starting within a year.
The House should be under no illusion that the challenges here remain very considerable. A comprehensive solution must address all proliferation concerns related to Iran’s nuclear programme. To that end, existing sanctions remain intact and we will continue to enforce them robustly.
We continue to expand our bilateral engagement with Iran. Indeed, Iran’s non-resident chargé d’affaires is visiting the UK today. Last Thursday, we and Iran brought the protecting power arrangements to an end. This is a sign of increasing confidence that we can conduct bilateral business directly between capitals rather than through intermediaries. I thank the Governments of Sweden and Oman for acting as protecting powers since the closure of our embassy, and for their strong friendship and support for the UK. We will continue step by step with these improvements in our bilateral relations providing they remain reciprocal. We are, for example, working together on ways to make it easier for Iranians and British citizens to obtain consular and visa services.
On all these issues we will maintain intensive diplomatic activity in the days ahead and I will continue to keep the House informed on our work with other nations—whether it be in Europe, the Middle East or the prevention of nuclear proliferation—to ensure a more peaceful and stable world”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for repeating the Statement made in the other place, and the Foreign Secretary for providing an advance copy of it to the shadow Foreign Secretary, which I have read and which was of great assistance in preparing for our discussion this afternoon.
The events in the Ukraine demonstrate just how dangerous a moment this is. The deaths of more than 80 people and injuries to many hundreds more is ample demonstration of the personal cost to the population of a country eager for democratic change. I join the Government in expressing our condolences to the families of those who have been killed and our profound hopes for the recovery of those who have been injured.
It is far from clear what will happen next. I can see that there are deep differences in the Ukraine between those who want a modern European identity and those turning back towards a Russian, indeed, even, I think it is fair to say, Soviet-style identity. I do not accept, and fear the consequences of, the pejorative name-calling that we have seen in recent weeks. There may be a small number of nationalist extremists in the group who overthrew Mr Yanukovych, but I see no evidence at all that warrants the denunciation of the opposition by Yanukovych’s supporters or, indeed, by the Russian state media, in terms of an uprising of fascism in the country, as they have described it. Using the language of 1941 may be useful to opponents of change but bears no relationship to the real events of today.
What is needed today is systematic constitutional reform. What are needed are democratic institutions supported by popular elections to those institutions. What is needed is a willingness to determine democratically the balances between the different peoples in different parts of the country and the platform for reconciliation that only they can construct. What is decidedly not needed is any Russian statement about the potential need for what it has called “fraternal intervention”. That very phrase has a history, not least from the Czechoslovakian intervention of 1968. It is fundamentally unhelpful to hear that language because it leaves serious ambiguities as to what might happen next. No military intervention would be tolerable, and President Obama is surely right: Ukraine is not a piece on a Cold War chessboard. I assume that Her Majesty’s Government agree with this when they say that this is not a matter of choice between the European Union and Russia for the people of the Ukraine. It is essential that Mr Lavrov understands the goals of greater democracy in that country and a new generation potentially taking up the mantle. The global consequences of any military intervention are unthinkable. Ukraine is, whatever its financial difficulties—to which I must return in a moment—after the European part of Russia, the largest nation in Europe. It is rich in agriculture and many other resources, and in its culture. It stands at a key strategic frontier. Nothing could make a fraught situation worse than if there were to be some form of military intervention.
I make one other observation after talking with Ukrainian diplomats in the past couple of days. For the most part, they have said that they want to turn towards Europe and the EU. These are matters of choice for them, not me, but that is what they have expressed. They see it as a great economic opportunity, which sadly they need greatly, but just as much as a bulwark against corruption and a foundation for a reliable system of rule of law. However, you will find that if you speak to them they also think that the United Kingdom has far too little or possibly even nothing to add to the argument that they want to advance. They will tell you, without much diplomatic small talk, that the United Kingdom’s attitude to Europe is, at best, one of weak co-operation with that body that they aspire to join. At worst, the attitude is one of somewhat bloody-minded hostility likely to be seized on by those who are hostile, for nationalistic reasons, to a Ukrainian future that is more closely bound with Europe. Those diplomats take this matter seriously. Least of all can they understand—and they made this point to me with some strength—how the main party of government here in the United Kingdom left the centre-right Christian Democrat bloc, to which many Ukrainians see themselves as fairly naturally aligned, to gravitate towards a more extreme right alignment that they abhor and think is a risk to their country. That risk is being seized upon by the Russians.
Today the House will want to know what the United Kingdom can contribute to a peaceful outcome. I suggest that it could start by appointing a dedicated special envoy. This is a problem that is not going to go away overnight and will need to be addressed over a period of time. Ukraine’s economy is, as we have heard in the Statement, despite the fundamentals that should augur well, close to being wrecked. Is Russia still willing to contribute the financial support that it has hitherto offered to the Yanukovyck regime, or has that offer been withdrawn? I hope that the Minister will be in a position to tell us.
What contribution does the Foreign Secretary believe the IMF could provide? Two months ago he dismissed the idea advanced by my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander. Yesterday the Foreign Secretary agreed with the idea. Do the Government regret that the past months have drifted by, with the Ukraine drifting towards calamity? Of course conditions would have been needed at all stages, but how is the work on the conditions to be conducted in good time in order to have the impact that we now need it to have—it is plainly needed—yet avoid the mistakes, because the conditions are also about those, made by the Orange Revolution in 2004?
Will the Foreign Secretary call for the renewal of negotiations on the EU association agreement? In doing so, will he emphasise, as he will need to, the United Kingdom’s continuing support for the European Union, so that it is understood to be, in our view, a positive benefit? The Foreign Secretary has been talking to Mr Lavrov, as was said in the Statement, and I sincerely welcome it. Will he make these kinds of proposals to Foreign Minister Lavrov? Will he seek Mr Lavrov’s guarantee that Russia will not encourage south-eastern Ukraine to break away from Ukraine as a whole?
On Syria, we, too, welcome United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139. The position in that country, as the Foreign Secretary says, is grotesque and horrifying. He is quite right. Nevertheless, the humanitarian appeal is in desperate straits. We have called for a new donor conference to build funds that are desperately needed. Will the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, back this call this afternoon? What proposals do the Government have to encourage the regime’s supporters, especially Russia and Iran, to press Syria for a political settlement? There is every reason to think, as the Statement says, that the Syrian regime is not addressing the negotiations with any degree of seriousness. Assad is not serious. What are the Government’s objections to establishing a Syria contact group to encourage negotiations? As the Statement says, the current position is—I use the word used by the Foreign Secretary—“unacceptable”, whether we are talking about the use of chemical weapons or their decommissioning, or indeed anything else that the Syrians were expected to do as a result of the discussions that had begun.
On Iran, I repeat the congratulations offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. She probably feels burdened by congratulations these days but, goodness knows, nobody deserves them more. We welcome the framework agreement in Vienna last week. It is helpful and, I suspect, constructive in a limited way. Progress, however, is dependent on Iran sticking to the agreements it made last November. The number of centrifuges is reportedly still in excess of 10,000. A far lower limit was set in November. What steps do Her Majesty’s Government advocate to bring Iran into line with the deal that it itself has agreed? How will the Government here review the sanctions regime? I make none of these final points in order to be negative about what can be achieved or, indeed, about what has been achieved, but I know that these are conditions in which, if pressure is not continued in the right direction, the opportunities for backsliding are profound, and the dangers that come with them are still more profound.
I ask these questions out of sympathy, not hostility, for the objectives that have been expressed in the Statement, but the House will want to know the answers.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support for the Government’s approach. Perhaps I may simply say that the British Government do not presume that they do anything on their own in any of these circumstances. On Iran, we are working as part of the E3+3, which, as the noble Lord said, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, chairs so well. We are working on Syria with the Syrian core group, which consists of European countries, the United States and a number of Arab countries. The group continues to meet regularly as a means of pulling together those most concerned about the future of Syria. As the noble Lord said, the Foreign Secretary talks to his opposite number in Russia on a very regular basis. On Ukraine, we gave active support to the Polish, German and French Foreign Ministers in their efforts to help in Kiev. The Poles, after all, have a common border with Ukraine—and, to some extent, a common history—and we are part of a group of European countries that are of course actively engaged. However, in none of these, whatever Ukrainian diplomats may think, do we think that we operate separately from our partners and allies in Europe, across the Atlantic and across the Middle East.
In terms of asking the Russians not to do anything to encourage parts of Ukraine to split off, Crimea may in some ways be more of an immediate danger than south-east Ukraine. It may be one of the impacts of what has been shown on Ukrainian television in the past two or three days—in terms of the depths of personal corruption of the Yanukovych regime—that eastern Ukraine will be less prepared to resist the changes than it might otherwise have been. The Yanukovych regime, which was most strongly supported in the Donetsk region, as the noble Lord knows, has been more thoroughly discredited than we anticipated three or four days ago. Of course, what is happening in Ukraine is moving very rapidly and it is unclear what will emerge. We are working with others; I take the noble Lord’s point about whether we intend to appoint a special UK envoy, but I suspect that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary would say that we are working with others—we are part of the international community on this—and we intend to go on working with them.
In terms of the compliment made to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, we should also recognise that, of the women doing extremely valuable work in international diplomacy at present, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, is also doing a certain amount of very valuable and quite dangerous work in humanitarian assistance to Syria. We should be proud of the extent to which British women—Members of this House—are attempting to assist in these very difficult and, to a considerable extent, interconnected conflicts.
Certainly, a number of Governments, including our own, have said that the Vilnius association agreement remains on the table for Ukraine, but I again stress that we are not trying to make Ukrainians make a definitive choice between joining the European Union and leaving the Russians behind or the reverse. Clearly we have to find a solution through which Ukraine can adopt a more open form of government and a much stronger sense of the rule of law, begin to rebuild its very battered economy and restructure its enormous debts to a range of other countries. That, however, requires a new Government to emerge and we and others will do all we can, as we move towards the presidential elections now set for May, to assist the interim Government in moving in those directions.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I say to my noble friend that I am extremely relieved to hear that the Foreign Secretary is travelling to Washington to have discussions with the US Administration but, more importantly, to have discussions with the International Monetary Fund. Can he tell the House how much leverage we have with the IMF? We know, of course, of its exasperation that €300 billion was expended on very necessary eurozone bailouts but that only €610 million was pledged to Ukraine before the crisis started in November. Perhaps there has been a lack of urgency on the part of the IMF-EU relationship with Ukraine that has led us to where we are now.
I also congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the very measured tone that he has taken in terms of Russia. We need to co-operate with Russia and Ukraine and we also need Russia on Syria. However, on Syria—I do not wish to detain the House, I will be brief—surely we need to be tougher with Russia because we have wasted, some might say, two opportunities now in Geneva without seeing any progress whatever. To what extent might we help the Free Syrian Army to gain access to weapons so that it can defend wives and children?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
On Russia and Syria, I remind the noble Baroness that the resolution passed on Saturday in the UN Security Council was passed unanimously. This demonstrates, to an extent, that the Russians are beginning to lose patience with the regime, which is bombing, starving and besieging its own people throughout much of the country. That is at least some step forward. Of course we engage with the Russians as actively as we can on these and a number of other subjects.
On the question of help to the Syrian National Council and the moderate opposition in terms of weapons, the Government take the position that the House of Commons showed its unwillingness to provide military support in Syria and that we will not change our policy on that until we have brought that issue back to the Commons. That may happen at some time but, at present, we are providing non-lethal assistance to the Syrian opposition and will continue to do so.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, first, I welcome what the Minister has said about the moves to re-establish normal diplomatic relations with Iran. The more difficult and more complex our relationships are with countries, the more important it is to have a well plugged-in embassy in place and I hope very much that we will have normal diplomatic relations with Iran as soon as may be.
Secondly, and this echoes what the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, was saying, it seems that the link between these three countries—Ukraine, Syria and Iran—is the role of Russia. I was glad to hear that the Foreign Secretary has spoken to Mr Lavrov this morning. Will the Minister confirm that the strengthening of our engagement with Russia, both bilaterally and through the EU and other international organisations to which we belong, should now be a real priority for our foreign policy?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am well aware from many conversations with the Foreign Secretary that he has been working extremely hard over the past six months and more to engage the Russians on a wide range of issues; as the noble Lord will know from long experience, this is not always easy. It has been something that we have needed to do. Whether one calls the negotiating group on Iran the E3+3 or the P5+1, some of the members of that group are easier to work with than others but we do try to hold them all together.
On the current question, as I said in the Statement, we are moving forward gradually and proportionately and looking for reciprocal gestures and, so far, so relatively good. As the noble Lord will know, the current regime in Iran is complex and one always has to be aware that there are other aspects of the regime from the ones to whom we are talking.
Lord Howe of Aberavon (Con)
I wish to say only a few words and to concentrate on Ukraine in this context, because it is an unusual subject for us to be considering and it is in a very serious condition. I am glad also to be here in the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, as very shortly after Ukraine began emerging from the regional history the two of us were invited to form part of a multinational advisory group in Ukraine, helping it to develop its nationhood. At different stages we had the privilege of meeting both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko. It is very important to hear that our Government are supporting Ukraine with its problems at present; it certainly needs it.
I remember that when the two of us went down for the first time into Independence Square it was full of people, and we could not help noticing the statue of Stalin covered over with posters on behalf of the Pope. I remember that it was Stalin who said:
“The Pope! How many divisions has he got?”.
It shows, in a way, the extent of the divisions between the two groups in those early years of Ukraine’s growing independence. Having met both Yanukovych and Tymoshenko, one realises that they are both figures of some substance and figures facing real problems without all that much background and without assistance. It is important that we recognise the significance of Ukraine as an independent country of some real substance in the future, and I am delighted that Her Majesty’s Government are already doing so to that effect. It deserves it and I am sure that we can give some real help.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I thank the noble and learned Lord for all those comments, with which I agree.
Lord Hurd of Westwell (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend seen some rather disturbing press reports today about rows and ructions within the group of Syrians who are opposed to the Assad regime? This has happened before and it may happen again, but how does my noble friend assess the cohesion of the anti-Assad forces in Syria?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That is a very difficult question to answer in some ways because, as the noble Lord well knows, there is a very large variety of fighting groups. Indeed, in north-eastern Syria in the past week or two the moderate forces in the opposition have been fighting radical jihadis to expel them from ground otherwise occupied by the opposition. However, my experience of the Geneva II talks so far is that the representatives of the Syrian National Council have been more coherent and more constructive than some had predicted in advance. We are doing all we can to support the Syrian National Council in being an inclusive body, including Kurdish and Christian representatives, women and so on, and in strengthening its links with the moderate fighting forces on the ground. Of course, the picture remains extremely unclear. It is currently very difficult to get around inside Syria for obvious reasons, but we are a little more confident than we were that there is a reasonable opposition willing to work for a transition regime, through which we and others can work.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I think that we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, because he has been trying to get in for a while.
Lord Wills
I am very grateful and my question is brief. The Minister will be aware of reports that there has been a significant flight of capital from Ukraine in recent weeks. What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that assets that have been corruptly acquired in Ukraine are not being laundered in this country?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, that is a question that I have asked myself inside government. We are concerned about the movement of funds whose origins are not entirely clear. I am assured that the Government are monitoring these movements, but of course it is a matter of concern.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, it is utterly laudable and understandable that the United Kingdom and the other countries of the European Union should commit themselves to substantial economic aid for Ukraine. However, will the Government give an unreserved commitment to abjure every temptation to try to involve Ukraine in any militaristic alliance or allegiance with western European countries, bearing in mind that the chief port of Ukraine, Sevastopol, is the base of the Russian Black Sea fleet and that such a militaristic course, though tempting on the face of it, would be utter insanity?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I have seen the base of the Russian Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol with the Ukrainian Black Sea fleet, such as it is, not far away. I recall that someone for whom I used to work, Admiral Sir James Eberle, was invited in the early 1990s to advise the Russians and the Ukrainians on how the Black Sea fleet should be divided between the two. His recommendation was that the best thing was to scrap the entire fleet. Unfortunately, the advice was not taken.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, perhaps I may focus my question on Ukraine. It seems to me that there are some senses—not exactly repetitions—in which we are seeing replayed some of the things that were not resolved in the early 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet Union. I remember that at that time I was working at Lambeth as the archbishop’s foreign secretary, as it were, and on one occasion the telephone was brought to me in the bath. There was a call from the gatekeeper telling me that Mr Gorbachev was in captivity in the Crimea and he thought that I ought to know so that I could do something about it. Some very good and quite low-key, and low-cost, initiatives were taken by Her Majesty’s Government at that time to support the development of democracy in the various republics that resulted from the collapse of the Soviet Union, including Ukraine. Can we be reassured that, once things become a little more stable, those sorts of initiatives might be looked at again? I am suggesting not carbon copies but that sort of thing.
My other point is that only the churches never recognised the division of Europe. The Conference of European Churches always worked across Europe. There are very serious divisions in the churches in the Ukraine, often reflecting some of the fragmentations that exist in the country as a whole. Again, that is another area where Her Majesty’s Government might work with others to see how one moves towards a more democratic situation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I continue to learn how close church links can be across national boundaries. I was in Armenia some months ago and was met by a very chatty archbishop, who seemed to know almost every bishop I had ever met in this country. However, we all know that the Orthodox Church in and across the former Soviet Union is a very complex and divided entity, and not all its branches are committed to anything that we would recognise as a liberal approach to organised religion. Sadly, the different branches of the church in Ukraine represent that rather well.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, I had the honour to be one of those who advised the Ukrainian republic at the moment of its independence from Russia, and I have kept closely in touch with it ever since. I begin by saying—I shall not be long—that the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is absolutely right in indicating that the way in which Ukraine has been desperately trying to find security and, not least, to strengthen its relationships with the EU is an astonishing statement of trust in the EU. Perhaps it is time that we recognised that rather more than we sometimes do. It is a statement of belief in the future of a united Europe.
Perhaps I may ask one question of a practical kind. Outside the realm of governmental relations, how far does the Minister believe that in relations on a cultural level, on a religious level—indeed, with the appointment of Pope Francis possibly much more easily than in the past—and, not least, on an educational level we could establish a much stronger and more helpful relationship with Ukraine than we have done without putting at risk its relationship with Russia? I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that that relationship should not be made into a military one. I believe that there is much ground here for extensive and helpful relations between this country and what I hope will, before long, be the emerging democracy of Ukraine.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I did not answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, about military alliances. Across what the EU has called the “eastern neighbourhood”, we are aware that some countries—for example, Georgia—have a stated ambition to join NATO, and that is another delicate set of issues with which we will all have to deal. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that I think I beat her to help the new Ukrainian Government. The John F Kennedy School of Government asked for a Wallace to go to a conference in Kiev in December 1991. I found it almost surreal talking to a newly independent Government about the attributes of statehood that they suddenly found themselves having. I know that the noble Baroness, with the rest of the Kennedy school and others, then took over a much more detailed programme.
We are, of course, entirely open to cultural and educational relations. We very much want to work with Ukraine. I have no doubt that the British Council and others will wish to be engaged in as much assistance to Ukraine as possible—in particular, helping it to develop a much clearer concept of the rule of law and of the importance of law in every aspect of the economy, society and government.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, on Syria, in discussing UNSCR 2139, the Minister made the point that it was passed unanimously, which is very much to be welcomed. However, did the British Government press for it to be a chapter 7 resolution? As the Statement rightly said, the passing of the resolution is an important achievement but it will only make a practical difference if it is implemented in full. As it is not a chapter 7 resolution, what sanctions can be invoked if the siege of the 240,000 people continues; if there continue to be 5,000 deaths every month in Syria; and if the chemical weapons are not dismantled by 30 June this year? Without a chapter 7 resolution, is there really nothing very much that the UN will be able to do?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, we are doing our best to carry the P5 with us as we go. That is an important part of where we are going. It is extremely important that we got the first resolution on Syria for some time agreed unanimously by all participants. That is a significant step forward and we should not underrate it.
I agree that the situation is appalling. I am told that somewhere between 300,000 and 500,000 people are trapped in Aleppo at the moment. Part of the expectation of what will happen is that there may be another surge of refugees across the frontiers in the next six months if some of these sieges are lifted, as, of course, we very much hope they will be.
The fact that this is not a chapter 7 resolution does not necessarily mean that attitudes—including the Russian attitude and, perhaps with it, the Chinese attitude—will evolve. The behaviour of the regime in killing and starving its own people is losing the sympathy of the whole international community.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister answered the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, by talking about the role which the United Nations Security Council might play in the future. One of the things we should be doing is looking at the role of the International Criminal Court and the ability of the Security Council to make a referral—not least because Ban Ki-Moon only this week said that unspeakable suffering was being experienced by the children in Syria, with some 10,000 of those killed so far being children. In the Foreign Secretary’s Statement we heard about the barrel bombs that are continuing to rain down on Aleppo; the sieges being undertaken in places such as Homs, where people are being starved to death; and, in previous times, the use of Sarin gas and the fact that only 11% of chemical weapons have been removed thus far. Surely it is time for us to start thinking about collecting the evidence against those who have been responsible for these deeds, whether they come from extremist militant groups or the regime, to ensure that one day they will face their day of trial.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, a number of groups, both governmental and non-governmental, are collecting evidence of atrocities in Syria as we go forward. We are committed to a transition regime rather than a destruction regime because we are well aware of the lessons of Iraq where, under American leadership, most of the institutions of Saddam Hussein’s state were dismantled, leaving us with an ungoverned and ungovernable country. We are also very clear that in any transition there is no place for the core members of the Assad regime, and that is what we intend to negotiate through the Geneva II talks.
Pensions Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Pension statement
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation introduce arrangements for the periodic notification to individuals of their entitlement to request a pension statement.
(2) Such regulations shall not require the provision of such notification before a person has reached the age of 45 nor, subject to subsection (3) below, more frequently than once every five years.
(3) Such regulations shall require notification of entitlement to receive a pension statement in the penultimate year before a person reaches state pension age.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, like others, I am delighted that we are introducing a new state pension, based on 35 years of contributions, which will help to float older people off poverty and encourage savings. However, if that is to happen, people have to know where they stand as they go along, especially women who may have acquired credits and young people on short hours-contracts, on which we voted earlier today. They need to know how reliably their state pension entitlement is building up and whether they need to take any action to make good shortfalls.
It seems obvious, does it not, that if we want people to build a pension they must know how they are doing, how far they have got and what they may get? We expect this from the private sector. Most of us get not only yearly but six-monthly statements about our ISAs, for example, and how they and we are doing. Usually—not always—it encourages us to save more. We all agree that we need transparency about charges and better information and guidance about our financial choices. The Government set up a money advice service to help people do precisely that.
Along with my noble friend Lord McKenzie, who regrettably cannot be in his place today, I was again taken aback in Committee to learn that there will be no such service and support in the field of state pensions. On the biggest investment a person may have—their pension—which, for many people, will be worth more than their home, they are working blind. People will be working and contributing, or not, and claiming credits to which they are entitled, or not, without any information and guidance to help them until shortly before they retire, when it may be far too late to change the hours of their job or claim a carer’s credit which might have brought them safely into the NI system.
How many women in their 40s and 50s with teenage children know that if they work 16 hours a week at minimum wage they will not usually be building a state pension, but at 18 hours a week they will? How many women know that by caring for elderly relatives for 20 hours a week they could, and should, get a carer’s credit? Not many, yet it is one of the most important things they need to know. How many women even know that they will not get a married woman’s dependant pension from 2016 on? Very few, I suspect. We do not and will not tell them, unless they have the wit to ask, until it is almost too late to do much about it. It is absurd and shameful. The DWP’s refusal to provide a level of service is unacceptable. None of us would accept this from the private sector. Indeed, the private sector would probably be pursued and prosecuted if it behaved like we do.
What is the Government’s position? They will respond to a query, which is likely to come from the alert, educated and informed, but they will not bother to trouble those who most need advice, information and guidance. Those who do not inquire and those who leave it too late are most likely to retire with a pension shortfall. Who are the people who are most likely to retire with a shortfall and who will not know until it is too late? What a surprise—women, I fear.
In Committee, the DWP quoted the cost of providing annual statements as a deterrent—a cost which, none the less, we expect the private sector rightly to bear. I therefore suggest that we consider the “nudge” theory: that if we cannot afford to provide annual, or even five-yearly, individual statements, at the very least DWP sends out periodically a standard letter, in bright bold print, two paragraphs only—I offer a draft— saying for example:
“You are able to draw your state pension at 65. To get a full state pension you need by 65 to have made 35 years of contributions into the National Insurance Fund which pays out your pension. Pension contributions may come from your job or you may be receiving free contributions credited towards your pension if, for example, you have children under 12, you are a carer, you are on universal credit, you are disabled or in other circumstances”.
Paragraph 2 would say:
“You may want to find out how many years contribution you have already built up. If so, please contact us either by phoning us on “x” or online at “y”. If as a result you think you may not have made enough contributions by the time you reach 65, we can send you a leaflet which tells you what steps you can take to build a full pension”.
I offer this template letter to the Government as a possible way forward. One standard letter—a nudge—telling people what they may wish to know, in bold print, going out to everybody at five-yearly intervals from the age of 45. It is a nudge for people to find out where they stand and if necessary to do something about it, to help people to help themselves. Otherwise why bother with a Pensions Bill—one that is more generous and certainly one that I support—if we do not want or seek to encourage people to build a full state pension at the end of it? Why bother? It must make sense to nudge people. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)
I support my noble friend Lady Hollis on this amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is not here to second it, The Government have had a long-term policy—they kept telling us about it at every stage of this Bill—of being in favour of people saving for themselves in addition to having the pensions provided in the Bill. They expect people to save for themselves and they regard the pensions provisions that they are making as a kind of platform from which people can then make savings for themselves.
How are people to save for themselves if they do not have the necessary information about what their entitlement is? The amendment addresses the entitlement to a pension statement and notification of entitlement to a statement. All that is very necessary if people are to make sensible arrangements for their retirement. I am amazed to think that the Government may not accept this amendment. I hope however that they will because it is in line with their own thinking on the Bill. They want people to save. How do they expect people to save if they do not know what their entitlement is? They have an obligation to tell them what it is. Certainly it happens in the private sector; I belong to a private pension scheme and I get a regular statement as to what my entitlements are. Why can that not be the case for people who are receiving state benefits?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hollis has raised some significant questions and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers. This amendment follows an ultimately rather unsatisfactory discussion we had in Committee during which my noble friends Lord McKenzie and Lady Hollis, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others tried valiantly to get the Minister to explain exactly when somebody would receive a communication from DWP to warn them that the state pension they would get in future would not be the same as what they might have expected. I went back and reread the record. I think the answer we got was that they would get a statement if or when they asked for it and then normally only digitally. The Minister kindly arranged for officials to explain their communications strategy to Peers, and I am genuinely grateful for that. However I think it is fair to say that the exercise did not entirely allay our fears or perhaps fill out all the gaps in our knowledge. I hope the Minister is looking forward to finding a consultancy fee for my noble friend Lady Hollis for her contribution to what will doubtless be the next mailshot from the department.
In Committee I raised comments that had been made during the Select Committee inquiry and elsewhere from quite a wide variety of bodies about this subject. It is worth highlighting a couple. Citizens Advice has been stressing that considerable complexity inevitably remains in the system because of the transitional provisions. It says that,
“a sustained communications programme could improve outcomes, manage expectations, minimise misinformation, promote action on NI contributions, and support personal saving for retirement”.
That last point is one made by my noble friend Lady Turner. The Association of British Insurers had also stressed that adequate communication was essential because it was important that people did not feel unclear about how much they would receive, and it should be clear that they would need to save. That is a crucial drive behind all of these reforms and the Labour reforms that preceded them. People need to understand what they are going to get to make sure they save enough for their retirement.
The Select Committee certainly found that there was a lot of confusion out there. Many people thought that from now everybody would get £144 a week instead of the current state pension. Many people thought that all means-testing would disappear and that if they would have got more than £144 now that they would lose that in future. The committee stressed how important it was that people have full information about their future entitlement.
I reiterate three simple questions which I raised in Committee; they did not get answered at the time but I think the Minister has had an opportunity since then to reflect on them. First, how and when do the Government propose to contact people to tell them of the changes to their entitlement? Secondly, at what point will the Government contact people who have previously requested and received a pension statement to warn them that it may no longer be accurate? Finally, in setting up a communications campaign on this new scheme, what outcomes are the Government seeking and how will they measure them? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, the single-tier pension reforms are designed to simplify the current state pension system, to make it easier for people to understand what they will get from the state in retirement. More so than for other reforms, therefore, communication is critical to success, so I certainly share the interest that noble Lords have shown in this issue. Effective communication requires both the right message and the right channel for delivering that message. This forms the basis for our communication strategy to support these reforms, a summary of which I circulated to noble Lords this morning and which will be placed in the Library.
We will deliver a phased approach to our communications, building from Royal Assent towards the implementation of the reforms and beyond. This will allow us to provide accurate and up-to-date information as quickly as possible before we issue more tailored communications through a range of channels to reach all our audience groups.
State pension statements will remain a key communication with future pensioners and will be an important vehicle for helping individuals understand how they are affected by the reforms. The introduction of these reforms gives us the opportunity to radically transform the way we currently provide this statement service. Our ultimate vision is to provide an online system that is integrated with HMRC’s national insurance data, enabling people to access this information at a time to suit them and in a way that allows them to model the impact of gaining further qualifying years.
In Committee I said that we would provide statements that reflect the single-tier rules once we have the new IT in place and individuals’ NI contribution records are complete up to and including the 2015-16 tax year. Prior to April 2016 our plan was to continue to provide statements based on the current rules accompanied by additional information on the single-tier changes to those affected by the reforms. However, we believe there is trade-off in terms of providing information we have available based on current system amounts while trying to minimise the distribution of information that is potentially misleading or simply begs further questions. Noble Lords may wish to note that we are therefore currently reviewing the information we can provide to customers prior to April 2016 to ensure that it is as accurate and helpful as possible. We will make a decision on this by the end of March when we will make our plans more widely known through discussions with our stakeholders and within our broader communication materials.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked when we might contact previous recipients who will be affected by the changes. We will consider this to be part of the process. It is important to note that our data retention rules mean that our statement IT systems hold only a limited number of historic requests going back a maximum of 18 months, and therefore we cannot contact all previous statement recipients. The statements make it clear that the estimates they provide are based on the current rules and may change if individual circumstances alter or the law changes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friends Lady Turner and Lady Sherlock for their contributions. I understand that the Minister is as committed as could reasonably be expected to trying to ensure that people are aware of and fully knowledgeable about their entitlements. I accept and absolutely understand that there is considerable virtue in having an evidence-based policy by building it up on the results of research into the most effective lines of communication. I also agree that a variety of responses may be wanted, including press, mailings and online, but I have to say that I would worry if it was largely dependent on online information, given what we know about many people’s recalcitrance over using online facilities as UC is rolled out. It may be that it is a generational thing and that over the next decade to 20 years the recalcitrance begins to disappear, particularly if places such as Norfolk end up actually having access to broadband.
My difficulty is that the Minister has a policy premised on the fact that those who know that they do not know will make the inquiry. The problem is around those who do not know that they do not know, and I am not confident that he has in place a strategy to make them aware of it. In the past, the people who were most vulnerable would have been married women who had been in and out of the labour market according to their caring responsibilities. They had a very straightforward safety net by the fact that they could have 60% of the husband’s pension as a baseline, and only if their own contributions exceeded that, as increasingly they have begun to do, would they draw on their own contributions. That is no longer the case. So the 60% married women’s pension is being withdrawn without, as far as I can see, ensuring that those women know, first, that they are losing what they would have counted on in the past and which is common knowledge, and secondly, what other benefits—or credits, I should say—they may be entitled to claim because that information is not being sent out to them in lieu.
I think that the Minister has a problem here. We are on the same side and I fully accept that he wants to make sure that people are aware of this, but I do not think he really understands what happens when the safety net of the married women’s dependency pension which has existed for 50-odd years is pulled away and women are told that they are on their own. He does not actually know, understand or appreciate what it may be like to find the headspace, resources and capacity to change behaviour in order to build up a pension. I am sure that this is not a gender point, but I really do not think that the Minister understands where women like that may be coming from. In the past, as the Minister will know, we had deficiency notices under NIRS 2. They told you whether you had incomplete NI records. When the computer, on which the Minister is relying so heavily, toppled over in the late 1990s or thereabouts and we could not get it back on its feet for several years, we increasingly lengthened the period during which someone could buy back their NICs or make contributions accordingly to cover the lack of deficiency notices. We were willing to do it then for everybody on an annual basis, as far as I recall, before the computer toppled over, yet the Minister is reluctant to go back to that. I understand the point about mailings and so on, but at the very least I press the Minister to identify in his research the at-risk group. For my money, the at-risk group are women, particularly married women, who had relied on the 60% married women’s pension, who were perhaps unaware in the past of the credits they could have claimed, including carer’s credits, and they are not on the list.
I would like some assurance from the Minister—it could just be a nod if he likes—that the at-risk group in particular can be identified. At 65 or 66, they could find themselves on their own with an incomplete state pension and it is too late to do anything about it because we have failed to keep nudging them. If the Minister could give me that assurance, I would be content.
Lord Freud
I would be very comfortable giving the noble Baroness that assurance. Clearly, a generalised mailing out is exactly what we are concerned about. The evidence is that people will get official-looking letters which they do not look at. We have to find a way of getting to the most vulnerable groups, who may take a Rumsfeldian attitude—they do not know what they do not know—and we have to find a way through that. Therefore, I can give the noble Baroness that assurance. I think we are basically agreed around this Chamber about the need to get the communication right, but we need to do the research. There is no point in us making it up without that knowledge.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
With those assurances, I am content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Freud
“( ) Where regulations under section 22(5ZA) of the Contributions and Benefits Act have the effect that a person is credited, on or after 6 April 2016, with earnings or contributions for a tax year starting before that date, the earnings or contributions are to be treated for the purposes of calculating the rate under this paragraph as having been credited before 6 April 2016.”
Lord Freud
My Lords, in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, spoke movingly of the case of a service wife. Her husband, a commanding officer, was stationed in Belize. Travelling abroad with him meant she sacrificed a successful legal career in the UK, but she also gave up the ability to build up her state pension. It gives me great pleasure today to be able to present a means to redress this situation. I need to acknowledge, alongside the contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, those of the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Browne, and I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for her forensic analysis of this issue and her persistence in seeking a remedy for this group.
This amendment signals our determination to act. It places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow service spouses and civil partners, due to reach state pension age from 6 April 2016, to apply for national insurance credits for periods during which they accompanied their partner on a posting outside the UK. The regulations will make provision to allow credits for periods between 1975-76 and 2010. This will ensure that, even in the rare circumstances that someone has spent their entire working life accompanying their spouse abroad, they will still be able to build the 35-year contribution record needed for the full single tier.
This builds on this Government’s commitment, set out in the Armed Forces covenant, to remove disadvantages that the Armed Forces community may face in comparison to other citizens, and to recognise sacrifices made. We continue to work on the finer details of the scheme, which will be set out in regulations. This will include the manner in which applications will need to be made and the precise start date. From information supplied by the Ministry of Defence, we estimate that up to 20,000 individuals could have a higher single tier pension from these credits.
Key to the impact of these amendments will be how effectively they are communicated. We recognise the importance of alerting people to the scheme to maximise take-up, and this will be incorporated into our wider single tier communications strategy. The MoD also anticipates using the ex-service communities’ charitable network and the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency communication channels. This amendment is also grouped with a small number of technical, tidying-up amendments to Schedules 1 and 12. These are all consequential on either Amendment 9 or provisions elsewhere in the Bill.
In summary, those who support our armed services abroad should not be penalised. The prospective earnings credit introduced in 2010 helped to ensure that single- tier pensioners in the circumstances I have discussed could build entitlement to state pension for years after 2010, but not before. These amendments address this and ensure that people who have accompanied their spouse or civil partner on overseas postings are not unjustifiably disadvantaged. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I will just say a couple of sentences. I am very pleased indeed that the Government are building on the work of the last Labour Government in recognising the particular obligations that go with the military covenant and ensuring that the spouses of service personnel are not disadvantaged when it comes to a full state pension. I welcome this and am very glad that the department and the Minister have been able to meet the concerns raised in Committee.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s amendment, which requires the introduction of regulations to provide for spouses and civil partners of service personnel to gain national insurance credits for periods spent on accompanied assignments prior to 2010. As my noble friend has just said, these provisions build on the reforms of the last Labour Government, who allowed credits to begin from 2010. I thank the Minister for the generosity of his remarks about my noble friends Lady Dean and Lord McKenzie and, indeed, his recognition of my own small contribution to this outcome.
However, it would be remiss of me if I did not express from these Benches that we are in no doubt who is entitled to the greater credit for this amendment being tabled. It is my noble friend Lady Hollis who is the heroine of the hour. There is no question that the Government have acted because she raised the issue so effectively in an amendment in Grand Committee. Before she did so—and I am sure that the Minister will confirm this—the Government’s position was an honourable one, but, as expressed on page 33 of the document The Armed Forces Covenant: Today and Tomorrow, they stated:
“At present the Government has no plans to make further adjustments to the tax and benefits system for Service personnel and their families but will keep this issue under review”.
The Minister indicated in Grand Committee that he would review it and his officials have kept us all informed of that review going on and it is to his credit that it has resulted in this outcome.
The Government deserve significant credit for responding in the way they have done and now at least we can say in relation to this issue that there is no disadvantage and that members of the Armed Forces community have access to the same benefits as any other UK citizen. As the Minister has said, the challenge now is to ensure that, of those potential 20,000 beneficiaries, the maximum number benefit from this opportunity. The current figures for applications for the 2010 credits are disappointing. Either the MoD now needs to build a process for credits to be automated, or it needs to improve its engagement with its own personnel, to inform people of the availability of the credits and to facilitate and encourage take-up.
I accept that the other government amendments are consequential and uncontroversial and we welcome them also.
“( ) The weekly rate is not to be increased under subsection (1) if a person has opted to receive a lump sum.
( ) The amount of any lump sum to which a person who has deferred entitlement to a state pension shall be set out in regulations.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, we move to a new subject: deferred pension and how it may be taken, whether as income or lump sum. Over the past 15 years, most pensioners have for the first time been lifted out of poverty. In 1997 nearly half of pensioners were below the poverty line. It is now about one in seven: 14%, compared to nearly 50%. Pensions have risen three times faster than earnings, pension credit has topped up their income and now, we are pleased to say, pensioners are no more likely to be poor than any other group in society.
With pension credit for most future pensioners being absorbed into the new, more generous state pension, together with the guarantee of the triple lock, that journey out of poverty continues. Pensioners’ incomes, especially for those with no occupational pension, will be stronger and more stable than ever before. It is good news and I am delighted. I congratulate the Government on it, I really do.
We know, in any case, that most pensioners are very careful and spend up to their income and no more. They cope and they avoid debt like the devil. However, the growing problem is that those pensioners dependent on the state system, who may in future have a more adequate state pension, are also less and less likely to go into retirement with some modest savings as a cushion against rainy days or as a resource to meet lumpy expenditure. Currently, 21% of pensioners—one in five—have no savings whatever; 37%, more than a third, have less than £3,000 in savings; and half have less than £8,000. If the Minister gives us any mean averages, they are frankly a waste of time, as they were in a previous debate about hours.
Pensioners face soaring quarterly energy bills—I imagine other noble Lords, like me, have been slightly shocked in the past week or two to receive an energy bill rather larger than anticipated. The roof may need substantial work, especially after the gales, and may not be fully covered by insurance. Washing machines and boilers pack up. If they live in rural Norfolk, they may need to replace their old car with another, otherwise they are effectively housebound. They may have an outstanding mortgage and want to pay it off. What do the one in five who have no savings at all do when they are hit by a large utility bill? What do the more than one in three who have savings of less than £3,000 do when one of them dies and they face funeral bills?
We have, understandably, concentrated on building up pensioners’ incomes, and rightly so. However, we have largely ignored the issue of accessible pensioner savings for those of modest income. You can always turn capital into income—you just draw it down as you need it for that energy bill—but it is very hard to suddenly find £400 or more to pay the winter quarter energy bill from state pension income alone if you have no savings on which to draw. In other words, pensioners need savings, just as we all do, and too often they do not have any.
We recognised this when we did the deal with what was then Age Concern as we introduced pension credit in, I think, about 2002. The first £10,000 of savings would be disregarded for pension credit, although thereafter there was a high notional tariff rate. We recognised this need for savings when my noble friend Lord McKenzie made means-testing far more light-touch as pensioners became older. That is why, incidentally, I am seriously bothered about the new class 3A contributions, which encourage pensioners to use up capital to buy a year of S2P, taking an unwise gamble on their life expectancy, increasing their income by a bit but heavily reducing their capital. That is very unwise.
Above all, we recognised this when, back in 2005, we allowed pensioners who had deferred drawing their state pension to take that saved-up pension either as an income addition to their future pension—which is what most did—or as a lump sum to give them some savings. The Government propose to abolish the choice of taking that saved-up pension as a lump sum; it will be available to people only as an addition to the state pension. They are removing the choice of a savings sum from future pensioners. Currently, of the 1.2 million who defer their pensions, 63,000 take the lump sum, which was, on average, just under £14,000. In future, that option will be scrapped. Why? The Minister for Pensions, Steve Webb, is absolutely clear that he is doing it to “simplify the system”. It is not about costs at all, he says, just about simplicity. What is so difficult to understand about a lump sum of your two years or so deferred pension? It is complex, the Minister says, because DWP needs a 64-page leaflet to explain the choice. The Minister in your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, says the same.
As the Minister would expect, I have that 64-page leaflet. It is well written—well done to the DWP—simple to understand and straightforward. I have worked through it. I calculate that if, in the name of simplicity, you removed the choice of a lump sum and allowed only an increase in the pension, you would remove precisely 11 pages in total—I will give him the references if he wishes—so that the 64 pages would come down to 53. The rest of the pamphlet would remain unchanged apart from occasionally deleting the words “or lump sum” from, for example: what happens when I die, if I get divorced or if I am widowed; can I combine them; what if I live abroad; what are the effects on my benefits or on my tax; where can I find out more; what organisations may help me; and so on. That is what the 53 pages are largely about. All that applies to any deferred state pension, whether it is taken as an increment or as a lump sum—the argument of simplicity does not wash at all. It is a complete myth, and if anybody worked through that pamphlet, they would see it for themselves. I am confident that the Minister has worked through that pamphlet and I am therefore confident that he will agree with my assertion that it removes only 11 pages out of 64 in the name of simplicity, thus denying choice to people who want to exercise that choice. Taking out that choice in the name of alleged simplicity is, frankly, laughable—it is absurd. I have never seen such a trivial justification. It takes 11 out of 64 pages and thereby denies the choice of a savings lump sum to 65,000 people. I presume the Minister thinks people can understand 53 pages but that 64 pages is just too much. Really? Because he thinks, without any evidence, that they cannot manage those extra 11 pages, he will take the decision out of their hands and make it himself. He knows better than pensioners what they should do with their money. He cannot trust people who have been working and scrimping for 50 years not to waste any savings—their money—that they may accrue.
Mind you, if you have a private occupational pension and get a 25% lump sum tax-free, that is fine. You can do what you want with it. If you simply defer your S2P element, your additional pension, for two years you can take that as a lump sum. The Minister will not tell you how to spend that either. However, on a state pension, he is taking away the possibility of a lump sum—your money—that you have saved for, because, frankly, he does not trust you with it and is calling it simplicity if he takes 11 pages out of a 64-page pamphlet.
Some people, after two years’ deferral, may want that £14,000 of their money rather than the alternative of £14 a week. I would. They would be better off taking the £14 per week instead of a lump sum only if they live, I calculate, a further 20 years until they are aged 87. Those without savings are also poorer and least likely even to reach 80, let alone 87. Who are we talking about? They may be husbands working longer until their younger wife also reaches state pension age. They may both work longer, and one takes the income and the other the lump sum. They may have a somewhat impaired life expectancy; perhaps one is a smoker and they want the lump sum up front just in case that person does not survive to 87. The unspent portion of the lump sum can be inherited by the surviving spouse and would help cushion her—but if taken as increased income it dies with him.
We rightly spend hours trying to encourage people of working age to work longer. We rightly spend hours trying to get them to save. We know we need to build a savings culture. In a low-paid job, perhaps the only way they may be able to build savings is to defer their state pensions for a year or two, work a bit longer and take it as a lump sum. That may subsequently save them needing to get loans at huge interest rates because they have a lumpy bill, perhaps an energy bill, to meet. It allows them to make choices, which each one of us in this House takes for granted. Having just that extra margin in savings means that they can decide to help a grandchild, buy a washing machine that works, replace the carpet, celebrate a golden wedding anniversary, turn up the heating when it freezes or give a donation to their local church. They cannot do that out of income. They need savings. It is their choice, not ours. Pensioners, as they enter pension age, are moral adults and we should respect that and respect them. They have earned the right to that choice and we—and the Government—have absolutely no right at all to take that choice away. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, although we gave this a fairly good airing in Committee, I confess that I do not yet feel that I properly understand the nature of the Government’s objections to the taking of lump sums. My noble friend Lady Hollis explained her case for this, and there is no doubt that we have a crisis of savings in this country. Too many people do not have a safety net for a rainy day, and British households generally do not have enough money in savings. That amount has been falling in recent years—unsurprisingly, given the pressures on the cost of living. The case made by my noble friend about why people might need access to a lump sum deserves an answer from the Minister. She described when and why the option was introduced and what people might use it for.
However, having gone carefully over the record and the correspondence since, I did not get answers to some of the questions which I put to the Minister in Committee. Those answers would help me because I would like to understand two things. First, are the Government confident that they have worked through who will be affected by this, what the impact will be and what the alternatives are? Secondly, can they explain clearly why they are doing it? On the first point—and I did ask this—we know that 75% of those who are deferring are women, but do we know why?
My noble friend suggested in Committee that those people are waiting until their partner retires to claim their pensions. Have the Government been able to confirm whether that is why they are deferring, or are they deferring because they are still working and have not saved enough to feel able to retire? What do we know about the wealth of those who are deferring their pensions? These questions matter because they would go to the points made by my noble friend Lady Hollis about whether people without savings are going to end up accessing other forms of credit, which we would not want them to do as they may be problematic.
Most of all, I would like to understand what the Government’s objection is. We have had a few arguments made: the argument of simplicity was made and has been pretty well dispatched, so I will not revisit it. Another argument raised was that significant numbers of people deferring and claiming a lump sum are living overseas. However, we know from the data given to us that more than three-quarters of those people are living in the UK, so that is probably not the issue. Is it the administrative burden? Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether it is that or simply the cost.
If it is the cost, I understand that. If the Government’s argument is that the costs are significant, the House, I am sure, will listen carefully. However, it would be helpful at this point if the Minister could simply come out and say whether he would like to do this but cannot afford it or whether the Government think for some reason that it is a bad idea, in which case my noble friend Lady Hollis has laid down a strong challenge which the Minister really should answer.
Lord Freud
My Lords, in designing the single-tier reforms our overriding aim has been to deliver a flat-rate pension above the basic level of the means test without increasing spending, and to do so in a way that recognises people’s contributions under the current system. This is not easy to do and it involves difficult trade-offs. Some elements of the transition necessarily generate costs in the early years, particularly the “better of” calculation, which means that people with low amounts of additional state pension, such as carers, receive a boost. There is also the fact that those with high amounts of additional state pension, which take them over the full amount of the single-tier pension, are able to keep the surplus as a protected payment. Nevertheless, we have been able to stay within 1% of projected expenditure until 2040, which is fair to current pensioners and to future taxpayers.
In answer to the blunt question of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, removal of the lump sum option for those who defer their state pension has played a key role in flattening expenditure. The early-year savings that this delivers have been ploughed back into the single-tier design. We are, however, still keen to preserve some flexibility for single-tier pensioners who, by choice or accident, claim after they reach state pension age, so people will still be able to build up an increase to their state pension that is paid on top of their single-tier entitlement for the rest of their lives. As discussed in Grand Committee, there remains the option of backdating a claim for a single-tier pension. By backdating their claim to a state pension, someone who has delayed claiming for whatever reason—either unintentionally or as part of a planned retirement—will be able to get up to 12 months’ arrears when they make their claim for a pension. This would provide someone who has qualified for the maximum weekly amount of £144 with arrears of almost £7,500 at 2012-13 prices.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Can the Minister help me with a technical point? With arrears, is the assumption that interest will be paid on the deferred money?
Lord Freud
What happens is that the amount is repegged to the year in which it is taken. If, for instance, someone’s delay in claiming exceeded a year, they would get an increment on top of the single-tier entitlement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I am sorry but I still do not understand. This is a very simple point. At the end of the year in which you have not drawn your pension, do you get the equivalent of a return on capital—in other words, an interest payment—over and beyond the direct addition of 12 months of state pension?
Lord Freud
No, you do not get interest on arrears, but let me take the example of someone who delays claiming the maximum amount for two years and wants to backdate their claim for the 12 months. If we take the £144 example, they would get an increment of around £7.50 to £8 a week, depending on the value of the uprating, which would be added to their weekly entitlement. It would also include the calculation of arrears due to them for the backdated period. That would boost the overall arrears payment to more than £8,000, so that is the mechanism through which the delay works.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about why women in particular are deferring, one of the main reasons is that women have a lower state pension age than men, although of course the reasons will vary with individual circumstances. I am loath to go too deeply into the simplicity argument because we will have a row which will go on for ever. However, to conflate complexity with the number of extra pages in a particular pamphlet is, bluntly, a somewhat bizarre argument. The difficulty for individuals is in making the decision on what option is best for them in the longer term and what is best for their surviving spouse.
Lord Freud
I must confess that I have not counted up the pages or gone through it in detail. I suspect that I have gone through it but I cannot remember it and have not done the counting job on pages that clearly I should have. I knew that I should not have said this. However, I am not going to back down and I will stay with my “bizarre” comment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Is this evidence-based policy? The Minister has not read it but it is “bizarre”.
Lord Freud
My Lords, I am most grateful for having a superb staff, some of whom have not only read the document but written it, so I am confident in the statement that I have just made.
The removal of the lump sum is not because we do not trust people; in fact, it is quite the opposite. We believe that people can make savings decisions for themselves. If they can afford not to claim the state pension, they can choose to save it.
Let me go to the figures on pensioner capital. We do not recognise the figures quoted by the noble Baroness. The figures I can quote—which are not averages, which I know the noble Baroness would scorn—are that almost three-quarters of the pensioner population already have more than £5,000 in capital, and more than half of all pensioners have more than £12,500 in net wealth.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The Minister challenges my figures. Is that households or individual pensioners?
Lord Freud
I am not sure why that was the point precisely, but those are the figures I have. The proposed amendment would allow for regulations to introduce a lump-sum payment into the new scheme. That would bring costs forward and would undermine the cost neutrality of the single-tier package, as well as the simplification.
Bringing costs forward may sound like a technical concern, but the timing of expenditure is vital. Without making offsetting savings elsewhere in the single-tier package, Governments in the early years of single tier would be forced to divert more spending towards the state pension system than under the current scheme, which means more government borrowing for future generations to shoulder, or less to spend on today’s priorities. We simply do not believe it is right to make this trade-off to enhance the personal financial management options for a relatively small group of people who do not need to draw the income from their state pension and are therefore able to exercise their option to defer.
We understand that a one-off payment can help people build up capital, and the backdating option can provide flexibility in this respect. However, we question whether there is a widespread problem of low capital for those in retirement. Introducing a lump sum would require us to make alternative savings from elsewhere in the single-tier package, most likely by reducing coverage. We simply cannot agree to that, and so I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, that was a very interesting reply. I only wish we were in Committee so we could show up more of the thinness of the Minister’s reply. For somebody who is so evidence-based—which is something I greatly respect about the Minister—he was dismissing it rather wildly out of hand.
The Minister pushed the argument that this is about cost and said that this removal played a key role in “containing expenditure”. That is very interesting. I had a discussion with his right honourable friend something like three weeks ago on precisely this point. He assured me most emphatically and vigorously—I am sure he would confirm the conversation, and there were witnesses—that this had nothing to do with cost but was only about simplicity. May I at least suggest that the Minister talks to his right honourable friend and agrees a common line on this? At the moment, one says it is all about cost and the other says it is nothing to do with cost but is all about simplicity. I suspect that the Minister in our House is probably correct about the cost argument, but that is not the position presented by the Minister responsible for pensions, who assured me emphatically to the contrary.
As to the point about simplicity, frankly, it is absurd. I checked my pages again. Pages 11 to 17 are a table showing the cost value of a lump sum compared with increments, and pages 26 to 29 are on taxing the lump sum. That makes 11 pages in total, and probably only three of those, on taxing the lump sum, would be regarded as any form of challenge beyond a reading age of seven and a quarter—so the Minister’s argument about simplicity is frankly absurd, patronising, condescending, lacking evidence and without any factual basis whatever. Frankly, we expect rather better from the Minister.
As for pensioner savings, as I suspected, the difference between us is that my figures are based on individuals, and I stand by them, and his figures are based on households, which does not help the argument very much. He seems to think that 64,000 people denied a lump sum is such a small number that we do not need to bother about them. It is three times the number of service spouses, if I remember correctly, that he is going to help through the military covenant, and no one said they were too small a number to bother about—yet the figure for a lump sum possibility which is three times larger is too trivial to be worth troubling ourselves with.
Frankly, I do not think the Minister believes a word of his argument. I think he does believe his argument about cost, but I do not think he believes anything else about it. He knows and understands that pensioners need savings. He knows that this may be a way for those who take this lump sum to exercise that choice. He knows that it is not difficult to understand. It could not be simpler. Do you want to take this two years’ worth of pension as a lump sum or do you want to add it on? If you are taking away the increment, that would be complicated to explain. A lump sum is the easier and simpler of the two options, and that is the one the Minister is taking away, to the pain of the individual who I calculate will reach their cross-over point—I asked the Minister for this figure, but it has never come to me—at about 87: I stand to be corrected if the Minister thinks I am wrong.
We are left with backdating—fine. All I can hope, and I am sure others do as well, is that we will keep up the pressure on Ministers to ensure that people are aware that they can take their pension lump sum in arrears, as a form of saving, after 12 months and get £7,500 or £8,000 for that sum, which will still keep them below any risk that other benefits, if they are necessary, including housing benefit, will be lost.
I am disappointed by the Minister’s reply, and I think that the Minister is disappointed by the Minister’s reply. He knows that it does not stand up to a scrap of scrutiny—not one scrap—but there is nothing much we are going to do about it at this time of night, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prosser
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on the development of the UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I stand to introduce this Question for Short Debate on women, peace and security, but not because the subject is a pleasing one. No, I am pleased because the more we debate these matters, the more we place our commitments and concerns on the record, the more likely it is that women in areas of conflict, who desperately need our voices and our support, will grow in confidence themselves and will feel stronger and more able to fight off the degradations and humiliations all too frequently suffered.
I can also express my pleasure at the work currently being done by our Government. The UK leads on the women, peace and security agenda in the UN Security Council, which is a very practical demonstration of commitment to this issue. During the period of our leadership two further Security Council resolutions have been agreed. Security Council Resolution 2106 notes that rape and other forms of sexual violence in armed conflict are war crimes and calls upon member states to comply with their obligations by investigating and prosecuting those who are subject to their jurisdiction who are responsible for such crimes. Further, the resolution recognises the need for accurate information and monitoring and, importantly, calls for further deployment of women protection advisers. A second resolution, UN Security Council Resolution 2122, unanimously agreed in October 2013, looks at the UN’s own responsibilities by, for example, strengthening the Security Council’s commitment to deliver this agenda by ensuring UN departments provide effective reporting and increase women’s participation in conflict resolution and peacebuilding processes. It also reiterates the Security Council’s decision to hold a high-level review of UNSCR 1325 in 2015.
I am also particularly pleased by the Government’s commitment to the elimination of rape as a weapon of war, as demonstrated by the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative. In November 2013, when announcing the global PSVI summit, William Hague said:
“We intend it to be the largest summit ever staged on this issue. We want to bring the world to a point of no return, creating irreversible momentum towards ending warzone rape and sexual violence worldwide”.
These are, indeed, welcome words.
We welcome the positive moves taking place which we are all pleased about and which give us confidence on behalf of our sisters around the world. Now here comes the “but”. With any such complicated initiative with far-reaching implications, both across and between Governments, nationally and globally, there will always be room for improvement, both by better co-ordination and clearer resourcing. This is, therefore, a two-stage process with immediate and longer-term objectives. The need to focus, in the first instance, on keeping women and girls safe is absolutely understood. However, this is a problem based on power and women and girls will not be safe while they remain powerless. Plans which build on women’s involvement and participation in the decision-making processes in their neighbourhoods, regions and countries will contribute towards shifting the power away from men and towards women and will help to bring about the cultural shifts which are so badly needed.
The national action plan and the review document published in October 2013 both recognise this argument and there is government commitment to putting women’s participation at the heart of the new national action plan. What is meant by participation? I would argue that participation must be seen in its deepest and widest sense: at local, regional and national level; in policy development around access to education, healthcare, employment, finance, et cetera; in the drafting of relevant legislation; in constitutional change and in access to democratic processes which enable women to become involved in all levels of public life. I am not always a fan of quota systems but they can kick-start a change to traditionally biased bodies and the need for the presence of women throughout society is so great that quotas would be essential. Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government’s negotiation and mediation teams will be at least 30% female, in line with agreed best practice guidelines?
We also need to see meaningful and robust consultation with in-country women’s organisations. That way, national action plans can best be developed and implemented and progress monitored to ensure the delivery of the NAP objectives. This work must also ensure that women’s NGOs are invited to participate in official meetings, particularly when those meetings are attended by Ministers or other decision-makers, where local voices can well make the decisions taken more relevant and more easily implemented. Involvement of local women’s organisations also informs and guides priorities; changes to so-called social norms can best be led by these organisations. Continued efforts need to be made to build on the in-country workshops which so helpfully informed the 2012 national action plan review and which should set the template for the development of the 2014-17 national action plan.
Turning to the question of funding, there needs to be the political will to allocate ring-fenced resources for this particular work, and there needs to be exemplar interdepartmental co-operation to make sure we get the biggest bang for our buck. Although significant sums have been allocated to various programmes, some run by DfID, some by the FCO and others through the MoD, there have never been any dedicated or ring-fenced moneys allocated to the national action plan. This can cause uncertainty and can also lead to a less than strategic approach. For example, women, peace and security criteria have been included in Strengthening Alliances and Partnerships within the Conflict Pool as part of the Building Stability Overseas strategy but it does not ring-fence funding for thematic priorities such as women, peace and security. Also, the Conflict Pool does not have a centrally driven approach and, although local influences are invaluable, an overarching strategy must surely be key to achieving the best delivery outcomes. With this in mind, how will DfID, the MoD and the FCO be sure that posts are implementing projects and that they are aligned to the principles of the NAP?
In summary, much good work has been and is being done. I have tried to capture the need to shift our emphasis away from dealing with the results of powerlessness towards enabling women to drive the agenda by knowledge, education, participation and influence. We need to ensure that the funding strategy enables local decision-making which fits into the overall strategy of the national action plan and that all departments involved in this project are taking an integrated approach. Successful outcomes will change women’s lives and, in turn, will provide security to the lives of all in areas that for so long have suffered conflict and a lack of security.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is a rather tightly timed debate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Wakefield has asked if he might speak in the gap. It would, therefore, be a help if all noble Lords could complete their speeches well before “6” comes up on the clock.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, having flown overnight from a different time zone, I was rather tempted to scratch from today’s debate and I now feel a bit guilty that I did not. However, as I was just discussing with the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, in the Prince’s Chamber, these matters are so crucial that, although we seem to debate them regularly, it is important for the rest of the world to know how much we in this Chamber care and worry about our sisters across the world. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate and thank the noble Baroness for so ably introducing it.
I will start by going back to basics with a reminder of what the NAP actually is. The UK national action plan provides a framework to ensure that the provisions of UNSCR 1325 and associated resolutions are incorporated into the Government’s work on violent conflict. The creation of a new UK cross-government plan provides an opportunity to outline how UNSCR 1325 can be integrated into wider defence, diplomacy and development measures, and adopted in armed conflict and post-conflict situations. It helps the Government to identify priorities, determine responsibilities and develop measurements against which progress can be measured at the national level.
Why do we need such a plan? The horrendous impact of conflict on women around the world has long been underestimated and, in many cases, brushed under the carpet. More than half of armed conflicts reignite within a decade of peace. At the heart of this problem lie flawed peacebuilding efforts which have often excluded 50% of the affected population: women. Over the past 50 years, the nature of conflict has changed; almost all modern conflicts are intra-state, although external dynamics still influence conflict realities. This means that it is more dangerous than ever to be a civilian in today’s conflicts.
As wars shift from the battlefields to communities, civilians now suffer more than ever. In World War I, approximately 10% of all deaths were of non-combatants; in Iraq, since 2003, civilians account for around 90% of all fatalities. These changes have impacted enormously on women and modern peacebuilding and security agendas must address this challenge. As Major General Patrick Cammaert—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—former military adviser to the UN Secretary-General, famously stated:
“It is now more dangerous to be a woman than to be a soldier in modern conflict”.
I do not suppose I will be the only person using that quote today. It is time for the UK and the international community to recognise this and move forward to an era where women are free from impunity. The UN Security Council’s renewed determination to bring women into the centre of all efforts to resolve conflict and promote peace is to be welcomed. The goal is not merely to ensure that women have seats at the table of all conflict resolutions, but also to ensure that communities and societies as a whole can benefit from their expertise and knowledge.
I welcome and acknowledge the UK Government’s commitment to this issue, particularly the Foreign Secretary’s passion to achieve greater justice for women and girls. As he said at the launch of the “No Women, No Peace” campaign, no lasting peace can be achieved after conflict unless the needs of women are met. This means not only justice for the victims of crimes of war, but their active involvement in creating a society in which their rights are respected and their voices are heard.
In the short time available I am sure that others will speak in detail about the importance of June’s conference, where the updated NAP will be launched. I look forward to hearing from others with expertise on the subject.
Credit is also due to Ban Ki-moon for leading the way. He confirmed at the end of last year that women must be involved at every stage of efforts to reassert the rule of law and to rebuild societies through transitional justice.
“Their needs for security and justice must be addressed. Their voices must be heard. Their rights must be protected”,
he said, urging the council to deal with the full range of women’s rights violations during conflict. He is leading by example by appointing more women to senior positions throughout the UN. For the first time in history, five UN peacekeeping operations are led by women: in South Sudan, Liberia, Cyprus, Haiti and Côte d’Ivoire. He has also appointed the UN’s first woman lead mediator in a peace process: Mary Robinson, the UN special envoy for the Great Lakes region of Africa.
While that is much to be welcomed, it is important to look beyond the top leadership positions. We need to examine where women are in the overall architecture of peacekeeping missions. Those in middle-ranking positions are just as critical because they are the ones who directly interact with the local populations who are directly affected by the conflicts.
I am going to cut most of the rest of this so as to give the right reverend Prelate a fair whack. I will say only that the only way to combat the dire threat to women across the world is to include them in peace processes. Without their input, no peace will ever be lasting.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for securing this debate. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Group on UN Women. In doing so, I immediately seek an assurance from my noble friend as to whether the All-Party Group on UN Women will be involved in the London conference in June 2014.
This has been a proactive Government in pursuing this agenda. Looking back over the 14-year period, the past three have probably been the most proactive that we have seen, the credit for which must of course go to the Foreign Secretary, who has taken such a personal stand and has championed this; and to my honourable friend in the other place, the ministerial champion for tackling violence against women overseas, Lynne Featherstone.
There has been a great deal of progress. We achieved a declaration on the issue for the first time at the G8 last year. Also last year, we had an inclusion in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting communiqué. I know well how difficult it is to get the 54 countries of the Commonwealth to come to any sort of consensus, so that was really quite a remarkable achievement. Nevertheless, these fine steps along the road of progress have not necessarily been followed by much action. I will give my noble friend some evidence for this.
Of the core group of the G8 member states, a significant one, involved in ongoing conflicts in the Caucasus, is Russia, which has not adopted a national action plan. In the Commonwealth, the evidence leads to even greater pessimism. Of the 54 countries of the Commonwealth, only eight have adopted national action plans to date. Three were among the old Commonwealth—Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom—so I think that one would expect that. However, the five remaining nations, of the new Commonwealth—Ghana, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Uganda—which signed up to these norms represent a counsel of despair. We know well that countries of the new Commonwealth, predominantly in Africa and south Asia, have very poor records of violence against women. Yes, we have come far but we still have a long way to go.
Particularly instructive about the absence of sign-up to national action plans is south Asia, as a region. Of the five countries in south Asia, four—India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka—have persistent, ongoing and long conflicts, yet not a single one of them has signed up to their commitments in this regard. Moreover, not a single country in the Middle East or north African region has signed up: not one Arab state is represented in the list of 43 countries that have developed national action plans. We might have made some progress, but we have done so within what I would describe as the “usual suspects”, rather than among those where the need is greatest. Looking at the extent of conflict in the Middle East now, our failure to achieve any progress there is significant. I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty’s Government will now—having got this far, through its leverage as a UN Security Council member, its role in funding UN Women as extensively as it does and having such a fantastic Conflict Pool—contemplate some form of conditionality in the aid and assistance they give to some of these countries, to pressure and leverage them to move forward and to prioritise action against violence against women.
Finally, I turn to the role of civil society and cross-learning, upon which both the UN Secretary-General in his report and, indeed, we, have put quite a lot of emphasis. It is not clear to me how much of our funding supports cross-learning. As an example, I draw the House’s attention to a Zambian programme supported by Oxfam, called “I Care About Her”. The programme is an illustration of where they have given up on trying to educate men through the conventional methodologies—the church, educational programmes, leaflets and so on—and have decided to educate men in a rather different way: by asking them which women were important in their lives. The answer came back quite clearly that men in Zambia considered mothers, sisters and daughters to be the important women in their lives, not their wives. The greater extent of the violence against women was against wives. The re-education focused on showing that the women who were the subjects of violence were somebody else’s mother, daughter or sister. It has been a hugely successful programme, and Oxfam should be commended for it. I hope my noble friend will be able to tell us if they are funding cross-learning of that sort from one country to another.
In conclusion, I very much welcome this new United Kingdom national action plan which is to be developed and implemented through 2014 to 2017. While achieving a great deal across our own Whitehall departmental functions, the UK should also use its lead to influence, to cajole and, if necessary, to push this issue across other parts of the world. That will be the demonstration of its leadership.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for securing this debate. I know that she has a long history of support for UN Security Council Resolution 1325. I am glad that in this debate we have the opportunity to highlight the important issues while Her Majesty’s Government are in the process of developing the next UK national action plan. I declare my interests as the chair of the advisory board of GAPS and a member of the steering board of the Foreign Secretary’s PSVI initiative.
The UK is a world leader in setting the women, peace and security agenda and played a crucial role in ensuring that UNSCR 1325 ever came into being. This resolution addresses both the impact of conflict on women, and the vital role that women do and should play in conflict prevention, conflict resolution and sustainable peace. This includes women’s role in preventing conflict, preventing violence against women, protection of women, and women’s social, economic and political participation. The new UK NAP provides a key opportunity for the UK to commit to an ambitious plan to take this forward.
Women’s participation in peace processes is a key element of UNSCR 1325, yet almost 14 years after its adoption there is still little progress in this area. Over the past 25 years only one in 40 peace signatories has been a woman, and only 12 out of 585 peace accords have referred to women’s needs. Therefore, I pay enormous tribute to our Foreign Secretary for speaking out so strongly about including Syrian women at the Geneva II peace process and his groundbreaking work through the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative that is making a huge impact with leaders around the world.
The next two years are key for women, peace and security both domestically and internationally, with the preventing sexual violence summit in June, the NATO summit in September, international drawdown of NATO troops from Afghanistan, the post-2015 framework, and the 15th anniversary of UN Resolution 1325 in October 2015. This new NAP gives an excellent opportunity for Her Majesty’s Government to consolidate and bring their women, peace and security agenda under one framework, maximising opportunities to ensure that women are at the heart of conflict prevention, peacebuilding and recovery.
Domestically, government co-ordination is central to enable the UK to meet its international women, peace and security commitments. To guarantee consistency of policy, the Government need a more joined-up approach to ensuring that all departmental policies and initiatives stem from the NAP, including policies relating to violence against women and girls, the PSVI and DfID’s call to action on violence against women and girls in emergencies.
Stronger mechanisms to mainstream gender and women, peace and security internally within departments need to be established, and gender training needs to be mandatory for some jobs in the UK and overseas. The Ministry of Defence has not yet developed distinct policies and training in line with UN Resolution 1325, and when the UK trains other national armed forces, all training should include women, peace and security. The PSVI summit in June will provide a good opportunity for the MoD to announce developments in this area, and for it to display its commitment to the women, peace and security agenda and preventing sexual violence on a global stage. At a country level, commitments to women, peace and security need to be reflected in FCO country business plans and DfID operational plans, and those commitments should be outlined in the new NAP.
As has already been mentioned, there is concern that the NAP has no dedicated funding. Neither do the Government currently use any systems to monitor their funding on this. For example, we know that the UK has women, peace and security programmes in many conflict-affected countries but we do not know how the UK prioritises this in its funding, and the use of the OECD gender marker would enable this.
As has already been mentioned, in-country consultation through talking to women and girls at grass roots is essential to ensure that the UK’s NAP and women, peace and security priorities reflect the needs of women and girls in conflict-affected and fragile environments. The new NAP should contain a plan for ongoing consultations in its focus countries. Most importantly, the NAP should acknowledge the role of local women’s rights organisations in prevention of conflict and violence against women, and their contribution to peacebuilding. Thus the NAP should commit to ensuring women’s civil society organisations have access to necessary funding including for campaigning and advocacy. This will transform their role and status so that they can fully participate in their community and national peacebuilding.
Monitoring and evaluation of the NAP is also important and the new NAP indicators should demonstrate impact, rather than just output, to enable identification of where its programming, systems and policies are effective, and where changes are required. The annual NAP report to Parliament is key and I hope that my noble friend the Minister can confirm that this will continue under the new NAP.
I am pleased to understand that Afghanistan remains a focus country, as women’s rights there was one of the reasons for our engagement, and we must not allow the gains that have been made for women there to roll back. The NAP provides an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate commitment to women’s rights in Afghanistan and support to Afghan women who so desperately need it. It is also essential that women from Afghanistan are included in the NATO summit in September so that their views are heard and that security for women in Afghanistan is not forgotten as NATO withdraws.
In conclusion, I congratulate the Government on all that they are doing on the women, peace and security agenda. This NAP is an excellent opportunity to push forward this work and to demonstrate the UK’s strong commitment, through funding programmes and ways of working, to ensure women truly are at the heart of conflict prevention, peacebuilding and recovery.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, there is actually currently no dedicated funding for the NAP. The UN Secretary-General has called for 15% of peacebuilding funding to be allocated to women, peace and security. However, when the NAP was discussed in the other place, the Minister, Mark Simmonds, refused to make such a commitment, saying that the Government do not want to be restricted to any percentage amount. In view of this, will the Minister tell the House how we can be confident that women, peace and security is integrated into all funding in conflict-affected countries, and how funding is likely to be monitored, such as through a gender marker? Further, could we have clarification on whether the conflict, stability and security fund will include a focus on women, peace and security? Can we have an assurance that women’s protection and participation and the prevention of violence against women and girls will ensure that women, peace and security is a priority for the fund?
On leadership and participation, UN Resolution 1325 makes it very clear that there must be women’s participation and leadership in domestic and international peace, security and justice issues. The facts are, however, that since 2010 only one in five ambassadors has been a woman; there has been very little representation of women in leadership positions in the Armed Forces and MoD; and there are no women as chairs or deputy chairs of the Cabinet committee. Against that rather discouraging background, how does the Minister consider that in the new NAP the issue of women’s leadership in the UK will be addressed? In addition, how will we fulfil commitments made to UN Resolution 1325? Women’s participation must feature as a priority across diplomatic, military and development policy and programmes, and must include women at grass-roots level. We need an assurance that this approach will be rigorously pursued. We need to know what has been done to incorporate women, peace and security and UN Resolution 1325 into the MoD. It seems to me that specific and dedicated women, peace and security doctrine, including training for armed forces and staff, should be incorporated into training of other national forces. I hope that we will, this evening, have a reassurance that this will be a commitment under the new NAP.
On co-ordination, I remain concerned that we need, under the new NAP, to see all the WPS initiatives, including DfID’s various activities and the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative, brought together under a broader women, peace and security agenda rather than being distinct policies led by different government departments. It would surely also be an improvement if the precise roles of the violence against women and girls champion, Lynne Featherstone in DfID, and the FCO lead on the NAP, Mark Simmonds MP, were to be included in the NAP, including the funding attached to each post. This would surely improve co-ordination between departments and bring some much-needed coherence to the process.
Addressing the root causes of violence against women and girls obviously has to be an essential element of efforts to build peace and stability. Is not it essential now to focus on those root causes—namely, gender inequality and discriminatory social norms?
I remain concerned about the murder and abuse of Afghan women human rights defenders and seek an assurance from the Minister that the recent high-profile killings are being raised forcefully with the authorities and that these brave women are being protected. In March last year, the DfID Secretary of State made violence against women and girls in Afghanistan a strategic priority. As we know, since then, things have become considerably worse for Afghan women and their rights. Eleven months after the statement, the Secretary of State is yet to announce what this priority will look like and how it compares with the financial commitment made to the other two strategic priorities for Afghanistan. Can the Minister therefore confirm that violence against women and girls will be a strategic priority in the new DfID operational plan for Afghanistan from 2015 and that women will be properly consulted in the development of the strategic priority?
As Syria is likely to be a focus in the next NAP period, can the Minister tell us how Syrian women’s future participation in the design, implementation and programming will be managed, prioritised and made more meaningful? It is surely time that the role of women in conflict prevention, peacebuilding and recovery is recognised, and is not the new NAP an opportunity to do exactly that?
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing this debate, looking forward as it does to the publication of the new action plan. Of course, I am very pleased that the UK is leading on this issue, but I want to widen the debate a little. We talk constantly of the empowerment of women, which is a very noble debate, but empowerment is hindered by two main factors. The power of men, of course, is the number one factor and very important. I remember in South Sudan years ago being asked to talk to the women of a certain area about their problems and possible ways of engaging them in decision-making. It took me all morning to persuade the men that we did not want them present at the discussions. A compromise was eventually reached in the end and the men encircled us, but at a distance where I thought that if we talked quietly they would not hear our conversation. I hope the women did not get beaten that evening, but they probably did.
The other factor holding women back is our own physiology. Women cannot be empowered if they have too many children and too much work to do. They have not the time to sit on councils and engage in decision-making at any level. As chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health, I must impress on Ministers over and again that the most useful intervention that we can make to empower women is to ensure that family planning supplies are available to control their fertility voluntarily. Some 220 million women are still without access to contraceptive supplies, with 250,000 women dying in childbirth and millions more suffering chronic ill heath and injury as a result of there being no healthcare when their babies are born. There is no empowerment for them or for the women raped in conflict with no access to emergency contraception or safe abortion in conflict situations, even though humanitarian law and the Geneva conventions decree that it should be available. No empowerment either for the girls who leave education at puberty to be married and start having babies far too early for their immature bodies. Empowerment is but a dream. Therefore, engagement in any of these decision-making processes is impossible.
Look at our own history. Our less well-off grandmothers took little part in society or decision-making, even if they had accessed higher education, because of the burdens of unplanned pregnancies. Contraception freely available will also help to prevent overpopulation and diminishing resources, especially water. There is more and more evidence showing this. This is another and major cause of conflict—the battle for scarce resources. Too many youths in particular, with little hope of jobs, are fighting for scanty food and water, which means more conflict, more suffering for women and less chance of their empowerment.
This Government have made huge progress in reproductive health rights, maternal health, family planning and safe abortion provision, in particular, in the past three years, and I thank them and commend them for that. But I am concerned about this action plan, and I hope that, when it is published, it will keep up this momentum and acknowledge the importance of these issues if we are ever to give women a share in decision-making and contribute to peace and security in future.
The Lord Bishop of Wakefield
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, on securing this debate. I reassure noble Lords that I am not speaking simply to bring a modicum of gender balance to the Chamber.
Many years ago now, when we were living in the East Midlands, my wife was a volunteer at a women’s refuge. She was scrupulous in maintaining confidentiality about those who used the refuge. None the less, on occasion, she would return home shocked and distressed at the violence that women had experienced, even here in our own country. It was a phenomenon that did not relate to just one stratum of society.
More widely, my own experience internationally as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s International Secretary in the 1990s and, more recently, with the international links that I have nurtured since being a diocesan bishop, I have been appalled by many of the stories of violence and abuse of women across the world. From widespread genital mutilation in Ethiopia to violence against women employed in gold-mining ventures by unscrupulous individuals in Tanzania, the stories continued to be manifold. Also included was violence against women in the terrible civil war at the end of the Mengistu regime in Ethiopia.
The churches have played a key part in addressing all these horrors, particularly the issue of genital mutilation. In the continuing conflicts in both the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, each tells its own horrific tale.
I was fortunate enough to secure a debate in this Chamber last March on just this subject. In that debate I paid tribute to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for his very important initiative on sexual violence in conflict, which has already been mentioned on a number of occasions. As we all know, the first National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security finished last year. Noble Lords have already heard, most notably from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, of the patchiness of plans across different nations on women, peace and security. As plans advance for the next stage of the national action plan, I ask Her Majesty's Government: will they conduct in-country consultations with civil society organisations, including faith leaders and churches, in each of the priority countries, before the development of the next UK national action plan?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Prosser on this debate and, indeed, all the speakers across the House, who, as usual, spoke with passion and expertise about this subject. I also thank Womankind and the Library for the excellent briefings they produced.
Hardly a week goes by without reports of the effect of conflict on women and children, whether it is in Syria, Sri Lanka or Afghanistan. As this debate reflects and as all the speakers have said, the world faces dealing with the normalisation of rape and sexual violence in conflict and, too, the disproportionate impact the conflict is having on women and children. Yet the irony is that women always offer the best hope for building lasting peace in any conflict situation.
Women’s voices should be heard not only because they are the victims of war; their active participation in peace efforts is essential, because they are the most effective peacebuilders. As men take up arms, women hold communities together in times of war. That makes them stronger and better equipped to play a key role in securing real peace. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, said, Ban Ki-moon is to be congratulated on his recognition of the importance of women. As my noble friend Lady Kinnock pointed out, the importance of women is at all levels.
Peacebuilding involves not just political leaders, but all of civil society, including women. I think we would all agree that without their full support and participation, no peace agreement can succeed in the long run. We know from our own experience that women leaders can often be successful in what seem to be intractable situations; we can point to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, in Europe and Iran.
The three-year review is very important indeed. I intend to spend most of the rest of my time listing questions that were in the briefings that we have been given and which have not necessarily been mentioned by other participants in the debate.
The right reverend Prelate was quite right in his question about the importance of consultation with civil society organisations. I, too, seek reassurance about that and on whether the Government are incorporating commitments to ongoing engagement and consultation with civil society organisations, particularly those to do with women’s rights, into the UK NAP to monitor and review its implementation and impact.
On capacity, co-ordination and consistency, will the Government seek a more joined-up reporting approach by departments in the new NAP? How will the Government ensure that desk officers, posts, country offices and the military use the new UK NAP content as guiding principles of their work? Will the new UK NAP link women, peace and security into the wider conflict and human rights work undertaken by the Government? Will there be commitments in the new NAP on how the UK will implement women, peace and security principles within its own security and justice systems, including the police and the military?
The MoD has already been mentioned by other speakers. Will it train UK forces on gender and incorporate WPS in efforts on security sector reform? Will the MoD appoint a gender adviser to take forward its work on WPS? Will it ensure that it includes WPS components when it trains other military organisations?
How will the Government measure the impact of their participation work? How will they work with and support local women’s rights organisations to support their capacity and participation? How will the Government ensure that women make up at least 30% of all negotiation and mediation teams in line with best practice guidelines? Finally, will the UK develop a roster of women whom it can nominate for peace negotiations?
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, for securing this important debate and for her tireless work in this area. I thank her and other speakers for the tributes they paid to the Government on the work that has been done, and note the comments about progress that is yet to come.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, is right to say that the powerlessness of women is at the root of this problem, which is why the education of women, ensuring that they are independent, have bank accounts and participate at all levels of society is key. As she said that, I found myself thinking about groups that I met in India over the past few days. I could see that DfID’s support for women and girls was transformational, but also how far we have to go. It is in the light of this that we need to assess what is happening in terms of women, peace and security.
We firmly share the view so powerfully expressed in this debate that women must be at the heart of peace and security. They are central to efforts to prevent violent conflict overseas and to build strong societies yet too often, as speakers have said, women and girls are excluded from peace processes and continue to be especially vulnerable to violence, with dreadful consequences.
The UN estimates that at least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in their lifetime. Although women and children represent 90% of casualties of conflict, only 8% of participants in peace negotiations have been women. Of nearly 600 peace agreements signed between 1990 and 2010, only 16% contained references to women. Looking more widely, women are too often marginalised in society generally. For example, they account for only 21% of parliamentarians globally, and would not be at that level but for quotas.
There is international consensus on what needs to be done. The UN Security Council set this out in 2000, in its Resolution 1325, and in the six resolutions since mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser. The council called for action under four pillars: women’s participation in building peace; preventing conflict and preventing violence against women and girls; protecting them; and making them central to the provision of humanitarian relief and a society’s recovery from conflict.
The UK can be pleased with how far we have come across government to put women and girls at the centre of policy. As my noble friend Lady Jenkin mentioned, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is leading an international effort to shatter a culture of impunity for sexual violence in conflict, building global momentum and taking practical action on the ground, including deploying experts to help in countries ranging from the DRC to Syria, and from Bosnia to Mali. The Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict, to which noble Lords referred, will take place in June, and 140 countries, international organisations and members of civil society will come together to discuss and agree what more we can do to tackle these terrible crimes. I will take back my noble friend Lady Falkner’s suggestion about the All-Party Group on UN Women.
My noble friend Lady Falkner flagged up those countries that do not have national action plans. I assure her that we are working bilaterally with such countries on security and justice reform, preventing violence against women and girls, empowerment, and tackling violence against women and girls in humanitarian settings. We are certainly encouraging those various countries to take that forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, mentioned Syrian women’s participation, and she will have noted that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been urging that women are included in the discussions on Syria’s future, and we will continue to do so.
The Department for International Development, as many noble Lords will know, works very hard to try to prevent violence against women and girls. Its strategic vision for girls and women promotes women and girls’ health and rights, and their access to economic resources and education—very much building upon the ideas that the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, outlined. It builds women’s political and civil participation and puts women’s and girls’ needs at the centre of our humanitarian response. It makes the policy arguments, including at the UN Commission on the Status of Women and in the debate about what follows the 2015 millennium development goals. Noble Lords will know that the United Kingdom is pushing hard for a stand-alone goal on gender. My honourable friend Lynne Featherstone is the Government’s champion on tackling violence against women and girls, and has led groundbreaking work in this area, including on tackling FGM.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the Ministry of Defence. Its goals cover personnel, training and operations, as noble Lords will know. It regularly reviews the employability of women in the Armed Forces and aims to ensure that gender is understood in all that the MoD does. The noble Baronesses, Lady Kinnock and Lady Thornton, flagged up this area in particular. The MoD constantly reviews training and includes sexual violence scenarios in pre-deployment. Operational planning for new theatres will take into consideration tackling sexual violence. NATO has carried out a lot of work towards integrating UN Security Council Resolution 1325 and gender perspectives into its command structure. This is a template that the Ministry of Defence can apply. We are also looking at the example set by Canada in terms of training overseas, and are seeking to see whether that can be brought into the way in which we do things through the Ministry of Defence. In terms of senior leadership, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, mentioned, we have, according to this note here, two female air vice-marshals in the Ministry of Defence, so we are making some progress but are acutely aware of the challenges that the MoD faces. I am sure that her comments will be taken note of.
Action at home is equally important, whether through the Home Office’s work to end violence against women and girls or the Government’s agenda to see women play a greater role in public life. We want women to represent half of new public appointees by the end of this Parliament, and we have reached a figure of 45%.
The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, raised the subject of quotas and whether negotiation and mediation teams will be at least 30% female. The Government are reluctant to set a specific figure on women’s representation, but we are pushing hard to improve numbers. I am sure that this will be kept under review.
The UN Security Council calls for member states to deliver on all four pillars through national action plans. The UK adopted its first such plan in 2006 and we will soon, as noble Lords mentioned, launch our third plan, for the next three years. My noble friend Lady Hodgson is right that this needs to be strategic and joined up across government for it to have its best effect. I read with enormous interest the independent review of the previous national action plan, which makes this point very clearly.
The challenge for the next plan is to bring together all the work that we do—we recognise that—and to ensure that we deliver both globally and on the ground and test our plans against what those in this field are saying to us. We will bring under one framework our work on the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative, the strategic vision for girls and women and the call to action on protecting women in emergencies, as well as our work at the UN Security Council and at the Commission on the Status of Women. I hope that this reassures noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, that that is the approach that we are taking. My noble friend Lady Hodgson asked about the review of the national action plan and whether it will continue to be reviewed annually and reported to Parliament. We will continue to report annually on this, as well as to hold frequent meetings about it.
We are also learning from what appears to be working. DfID has a fund of, I think, £25 million—I do not have the exact figure in front of me—which is a research and innovation fund. My noble friend Lady Falkner asked about what we were learning; that fund is seeking to analyse what works and, therefore, what should be taken forward further. We are seeking to bring all this together; I think that that is vital. We will deliver multilaterally, through the United Nations, NATO and the European Union and now also in partnership with the African Union. We will put in place stringent monitoring and evaluation to assess the impact and outcomes of our actions and to capture the changes that our national action plan will make for girls and women on the ground. We will integrate women, peace and security issues into the work of the new Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock.
I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, that there will be central guidance from the fund on women, peace and security, although our conclusion is that a ring-fenced allocation would in fact encourage programme designers to take a compartmentalised approach to women. We think that it is extremely important, as that review indicates, to look at this strategically and make sure that it runs right through all the various programmes, but I understand people’s concern and the necessity to make sure that is does indeed run though every programme.
We will also be consulting both in the UK and on the ground and we take very seriously the Associate Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security and Gender Action for Peace and Security. They were instrumental in delivering a successful workshop at our embassy in Kabul in December and will remain invaluable as we plan and carry out more workshops before April. We continue to be very engaged as far as the position of women in Afghanistan is concerned.
As we prepare to adopt and implement a new national action plan, we can be proud of what we have achieved but we recognise that we have much more to do and that we need impact that helps to shift general attitudes in society, protects women and girls and secures a better place for them in delivering peace and security. What lies behind all this, as noble Lords have made clear, is gender inequality. They are right that addressing this is fundamental to ensuring that women and girls are at the heart of all that we do, everywhere and in everything.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we began this debate by having 62 minutes for a 60-minute debate, including the intervention in the gap. Thanks to the immense self-discipline of speakers—in particular, that of the opposition final speaker—we have now ended with three minutes to spare. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.47 pm.
Pensions Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, cannot be present today for personal reasons. Given the circumstances, I should be happy to have further discussions with him about his Amendment 7.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I know that my noble friend would wish to bring back his amendment at Third Reading. Would that be okay with the Minister?
Lord Freud
“In section 1 (outline of contributory system), in subsection (1)(a), after “this Act” insert “or any other Act”.
In section 13 (Class 3 contributions), in subsection (2), omit “contribution”.
After section 19A insert—
“19B Extended meaning of “benefit” etc in Part 1
In this Part references to “benefit” or “contributory benefit” include benefit under Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2014.””
“(5ZB) Regulations under subsection (5ZA) must provide for crediting a person with such contributions as may be specified in respect of periods on or after 6 April 1975 during which the person was—
(a) a spouse or civil partner of a member of Her Majesty’s forces,(b) accompanying the member on an assignment outside the United Kingdom, and(c) not of a description specified in the regulations.”
“In section 122(1) (interpretation), in the definition of “benefit”, after paragraph (c) insert—
“(For the meaning of “benefit” in Part 1, see also section 19B)”.”
Lord Whitty
“( ) The power conferred by subsection (2) on employers to amend occupational pension schemes does not override the powers and duties of Trustees of such schemes nor any duty to consult members of such schemes and their representatives in accordance with the terms of such schemes.”
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, with Clause 24 and Schedule 14 we deal with the impact of the ending of contracting out on existing occupational, or work-based, pension schemes. The impact is pretty severe, being up to 5% of the income of those schemes. The Government have provided some measures in Schedule 14 and Clause 24 that allow employers effectively either to increase the contributions of employees but not of employers or to cut back on the benefits of those schemes. I do not approve of that way of dealing with the situation for either the public or the private sectors. Of course, ending contracting out impacts on both sectors. Although Clause 24 is primarily about the private sector, there are a couple of related questions on the public sector that I should like to put to the Minister.
I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a long-term member of the GMB. I am therefore particularly concerned about the local government scheme but other public sector schemes are also affected. In Committee the Minister indicated that he was prepared to have discussions with the LGA—and, presumably, parallel discussions with other public sector employers—to consider how the loss to its funds could be made up.
I understand that a meeting took place on 14 January and that the noble Lord, Lord German, was present at that meeting and may be able to elucidate. However, from the note of the meeting that I have seen, I am not clear as to the Government’s position on follow-up to that meeting in relation to the Local Government Pension Scheme. Of course, the Local Government Pension Scheme affects a large number of employers, not only local authorities but others in the public, private and third sectors. It is therefore important that some understanding of the stability of those schemes in future public expenditure allocations is established. It would be useful to hear of any progress on that or parallel fronts, so can the Minister update us on progress?
As to some of the schemes which are now in the private sector, Amendment 14 goes some way to meeting the concerns expressed on behalf of the post-privatisation schemes where guarantees were given that there would not be any diminution in the benefits from such schemes at the point of privatisation. So anyone who was in a scheme before that point should have been covered. I welcome that. However, I have a concern about the definition of “protected person”. The amendment refers to it being defined in regulations, whereas the schemes to which the Government have referred in their statements on electricity, railways, nuclear decommissioning and coal do not cover all the people who were given guarantees post-privatisation. For example, the guarantees for gas workers were written into the deeds of the scheme but were nevertheless promises backed by the Government. I should therefore like to know how far into the area of protected persons the regulations are likely to go. If the noble Lord wishes to write to me on that front I would be grateful but, in any case, out of equity, it ought to be addressed in the same way for every group of workers affected during that period of major privatisation of the utilities and other nationalised industries.
Of course, the Government have provided in Clause 24 and Schedule 14 a way out for others who are in private sector schemes. The way out is hugely detrimental to the members of those schemes in that it gives the right of override to employers—not to the scheme—to alter the terms of that scheme in order to make up the effects of the ending of contracting out, which can be up to a 5% deficit in such schemes. As the Bill stands, that ability to override is without reference to trustees, without invoking any consultation with members and without negotiations with trade unions or other worker representatives. Amendment 11 seeks to ensure that the rights of trustees are protected and that their legal responsibilities are recognised; that the trustees will be involved in any alteration of the scheme; and that consultation will be conducted in accordance with the terms of the scheme. Amendment 13, tabled by my noble friend Lady Turner, goes further and requires a ballot of members of such schemes. Unless we do that, we are seriously undermining the whole system of trusteeship of private sector occupational schemes.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that Amendment 12 is unnecessary because it is in the existing law. I hope that is the case but the terms of Clause 24 and Schedule 14 which allow for override and alteration are extremely wide. It should have been the law and it was generally accepted that it was the law post the Maxwell scandal and the reforms that led to the requirement that schemes could not at any point retrospectively change the accrued benefit of members up to that point. In other words, the scheme could be altered subsequently but anything accrued up to the point of change could not be retrospectively downgraded. Amendment 12 seeks to ensure clearly that this is the case.
We need clarity from the Government on this and we need their vision for the future of occupational work-based schemes because there is a contradiction in the Government’s position. On the one hand, we are engaged in a system of auto-enrolment to increase the coverage for workers who hitherto have been outside occupational schemes, and in principle we welcome all that. On the other hand, the effects of the Bill, without mitigation of the kind I am suggesting in Amendments 11 and 12, will undermine and even destroy the viability of many existing schemes. It is not just the final salary schemes that we are talking about here, or career average schemes or simply defined benefit schemes. It will also apply to or have implications for all occupational pension schemes, partly because of the financial effect but also because the viability of pension schemes depends not only on the funding arrangements and the rigour with which those schemes are managed, but on the mutuality between the members, the employers and the funders under which those schemes are set up. That is reflected in the trustee arrangements; expectations are based on that mutuality continuing and on that trustee protection. If that goes, then members’ and potential members’ trust in such schemes goes too. We need to hear clearly from the Government what their intentions are for this sector.
If trust goes, then the level of opt-out from such schemes will increase. Pension schemes will be seen as non-viable. Some pension schemes will fail and the workers and the employers who have hitherto seen their pension contributions as part of deferred pay may no longer regard them in that light. Therefore, pressure might grow for them to be paid immediately. Pension schemes are the most effective form of savings but they will not appear that way if trust in such schemes disappears. That is bad for future pensioners but it is also bad for the economy if that element of relatively automatic saving is undermined. To maintain the trust, the role of trustees is vital. I would therefore like the Government to accept Amendment 11 and to indicate that the role of trustees, and therefore the trust in such schemes, would be maintained. That is not to say that alterations could not be made, but they would be made through the way in which the role of the trustees and the consultation is laid down in such schemes.
At a minimum, I hope that the Government can accept Amendment 11, confirm my understanding that Amendment 12 is indeed the law as it stands and clarify the situation of protected persons in the post-privatisation schemes. I would also like them at least to consider accepting the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Turner, which would delete Schedule 14 entirely, because the idea behind this whole way of overriding long-standing schemes is pernicious. Amendment 11 gives a way of doing it in effect, but doing it by consent, which is far preferable and will preserve a very significant part of the remuneration package and savings structure of the country. I beg to move.
Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)
My Lords, in this section of the Bill employers are given a new power to change the provisions of a scheme in order to cover the NI costs to which they will be subjected. They may apparently do so without having to seek the agreement of staff or their unions. As my noble friend has pointed out, this is an overriding power to which a number of us objected at earlier stages when discussing the Bill. Schedule 11 sets out the provisions in some detail.
At Second Reading I referred to the development of what we now call defined benefit schemes, and what used to be called final salary schemes, as a result of which generations of pensioners have enjoyed excellent retirement provision. There was a move some years ago to change such schemes to money purchase schemes or schemes with less generous protection. Where the workforce was strong enough, probably with active union involvement, such schemes have been maintained. There is now, as a result of this Bill, concern among those who have not yet reached retirement age that these schemes will not continue and that employers will utilise the provisions in Schedule 11 to undermine or change them. Hence my amendment, which stipulates that an employer may not change these benefits without the agreement of the current scheme members, which under my amendment could be ascertained through a poll. I hope that the Government will agree that it is reasonable for the members of the scheme to have the final say. If an employer wants to change the existing arrangements, it must be by negotiation with the staff and their representatives and by agreement. Again, I hope the Government will agree that that is reasonable. If they do not, I would like to oppose the whole clause and the schedule.
I want to make another point about so-called protected persons. This was raised during earlier discussions and referred to again by my noble friend today. The Government have agreed in principle that individuals who were members of schemes when their employing companies were being denationalised would retain their pension provision. I believe the assurance is that where this protection has been agreed by statute, it will continue. I welcome that, and would like to see an endorsement of the point by the Minister. There are others who believe that they are covered not by statute but because their own private scheme gives them cover. Because of a change of ownership that might happen, they are concerned about their position in the future. Their position is not protected by statute, only by their own scheme. These people have concerns about what might happen to their DB scheme. My amendment would provide some cover because of the necessity to get the agreement of scheme members to any changes to benefit.
I wait with interest to hear what the Minister has to say to this, and in particular what he will say about his own Amendment 14, which looks like a tentative step in our direction. I hope that it is more than a tentative step and that he is undertaking to do something of the kind that we have been campaigning for and would like to see in the Bill before it leaves this House. I support the amendments already spoken to.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friends Lady Turner and Lord Whitty, who have robustly set out a fundamental challenge to Clause 24 and Schedule 13, which I think the Minister is required to engage with. Would the noble Lord and the Pensions Minister argue that the loss of the rebate, without some consequential provisions, would lead to the closure of defined benefit schemes? In short, my noble friends argue that this is where it will lead, even with the override which is designed to prevent their loss. There is a fundamental difference which deserves to be addressed in the way specifically asked for by my noble friend Lord Whitty. I am sure that the Minister will be conscious of that.
On the issue of protected persons, I welcome the Government’s concession, set out in Amendment 14, confirming that they will honour the specific undertaking given to the members of these schemes to encourage them to accept privatisation of the industries for which they worked. That is exactly why this undertaking was given to them. It has been promised for some time. Belated it may be in its delivery, but it is none the less welcome and it will be a relief to the 60,000 or more members of those identifiable schemes who have been awaiting this decision.
My noble friend Lord Whitty raised an interesting question about whether this concession can be made to apply in some form to gas workers who have a similar undertaking, but which was enshrined in a different way. I would be interested in what the Minister says about that.
Were my noble friend Lord Whitty’s Amendment 11 enacted it would ensure that:
“The power conferred … on employers to amend occupational pension schemes does not override the powers and duties of Trustees of such schemes nor any duty to consult members of such schemes and their representatives”.
To the extent that this amendment requires consultation with trustees, we support it. We had an extensive debate on these issues in Grand Committee and I made clear then that our position is one of broad agreement with the change to a single-tier pension and the aim of introducing simplicity into the state pension system. We also accepted that this required an end to contracting out. However, we agreed with the arguments put forward in Committee by my noble friend Lady Drake that statutory overrides are strong measures and should be used with care in all cases, at the very least requiring an employer to consult pension trustees before exercising the power to amend a pension scheme.
It would be to the benefit of understanding the Government’s position if the Minister would make clear in his response why the Government had set their face against consultation with trustees, especially when it is preserved in the statutory requirement to consult scheme members. It surely cannot be the case that the different approach to these forms of consultation is that consultation with trustees would be meaningful, but that consultation with individual members would be anything but—indeed it would be pointless. Like my noble friend Lord Whitty, I hope that the Minister’s response to Amendment 12 will be that it is unnecessary. It is my view that this is an expression of the current state of the law.
Finally, my noble friend raised an interesting point about public sector pensions, from his knowledge of the understandings that appear to have been implied by the meeting with the LGA. We would all be interested to know when further follow-up can be expected.
Lord Freud
My Lords, under the current system it is possible for defined benefit schemes to contract out of the additional state pension, giving up entitlement for additional state pension in return for a broadly similar occupational pension and payment of a lower national insurance rate for both employer and employee. When single tier is introduced, there will no longer be an additional state pension for defined benefit schemes to contract out of. Employers with such schemes will therefore no longer receive a national insurance rebate in respect of contracted-out members.
Employers will need to find ways to recoup the costs that the loss of the rebate brings. Unless they are able to do that, many employers will be forced to close their schemes. Clearly, members are not served by their pension schemes closing and the Government are committed to supporting the continuation of defined benefit pension provision. To that end, we are providing a statutory override to allow private sector employers to make limited changes to their schemes to adjust for the additional cost due to the end of contracting out. This is part of our wider state pension reforms. The majority of contracted-out workers in the private sector who reach state pension age in the first two decades of single tier will get enough extra state pension to offset the increase in national insurance they will pay over the rest of their working lives and any potential adjustments to their occupational pension schemes.
Noble Lords have made clear their concerns that the override is not abused by employers and that trustees and members are properly consulted about any changes. I fully recognise those concerns. The override allows for limited changes to future accruals and/or future contributions where the scheme rules would otherwise prevent that. I make it absolutely clear that the override does not permit the employer to ignore other rules about how the scheme operates. For example, it does not mean that an employer can avoid notifying trustees or members of a change, or refuse to carry out a consultation, if scheme rules would require this. Indeed, existing legislation requires that members are consulted on any significant rule changes before they are made. In response to the query from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that will remain the case. In addition, we have every reason to believe that employers will want to engage with trustees about how best to respond to the end of contracting out and believe it is in their best interest to do so.
Schedule 14 provides important safeguards, such as limits on the use of the override to prevent an employer from making changes beyond those necessary to recoup their increase in national insurance contributions, the need for an actuary to certify the changes and protection for members’ accrued rights. We will put further safeguards in regulations—for example, to ensure that the employer cannot create their own assumptions for the purposes of the calculation but must draw on existing assumptions used by the scheme.
Amendment 11 concerns protection for trustee powers and duties. As I have said, the override does not prevent the scheme operating normally. The only powers or duties that the override applies to—and therefore that the amendment would protect—are those that require trustee consent to changes or provide that only trustees can change scheme rules. Where these powers stay in place, they would make the override unusable, which in turn could encourage employers to close their scheme. Amendment 11 also seeks to ensure that the statutory override does not trump any duty to consult scheme members and their representatives. Such an amendment is unnecessary as scheme rules and existing legislation requiring member and representative consultation are not affected by the override.
The Government recognise that a trustee’s fiduciary duty to the scheme’s members may put them in a difficult position if they are required to agree scheme changes that, at face value, are detrimental to the member. However, the statutory override does not prevent the employer from engaging with the trustees on any scheme changes they are considering. It is in the employer’s interest to engage with trustees on proposed changes. Trustees are responsible for administering the pension scheme. All schemes need lead time before any changes can take place, to allow for IT systems to be updated and changes to the title deed to be made.
Part of Amendment 12 seeks to protect current members’ accrued rights. The Government absolutely agree that any accrued rights should be protected and preserved, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and other noble Lords that the Bill already provides such protection by way of paragraph 3 of Schedule 14. This refers to the protection of “subsisting rights”—the term used in pension legislation—for both scheme members and their survivors.
Amendment 12 would also remove the stipulation that changes made in respect of future members have to correspond to changes made in respect of current members. It is important to remember that the override will enable employers to offset the additional cost of national insurance that arises from April 2016. The amendment would broaden the override. An employer could set different contribution rates or different rates of accrual for current and future members. I do not believe that that would be right. The increased national insurance costs to the employer from 2016 will be the same for both groups of members, and the Bill as drafted ensures that the override reflects that.
Lord German (LD)
Will my noble friend allow me a moment’s intervention? I was present at that meeting, and I found it very interesting to have a representative of HMRC there. One of the principal conclusions I drew from that meeting was that there was an agreement between the LGA and HMRC that they would examine up front any arrangement for the distribution of additional funds from HMRC to local government pension funds, and would get the process sorted out in advance so that if money became available the method of distribution would be quick and would help them in their procedure. Can my noble friend confirm my understanding that HMRC is onside with this?
Lord Freud
My noble friend is probably way ahead of everyone in this Chamber at this moment on this matter, but I think I can simply answer yes to his understanding. As he says, whereas final decisions tend to get taken at a relatively late moment, if the processes are well organised, that matters less and they can be effectively activated.
The ending of contracting out is an inevitable consequence of the state pension reforms. We want to manage this as smoothly as possible and to minimise impacts on employers, schemes and individuals. I have set out why the override is necessary and why the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord would make the override unworkable. Amendment 11 would in many cases allow trustees to block changes to the scheme and would increase the risk that employers would simply close their schemes. That is why I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that. There is quite a lot in there which has cheered me up slightly—not everything, but bits of it. I am grateful for this update on the LGA position. We will watch this space. I am interested to see that there are other sectors that could be involved in that. I welcome the Minister’s statement in relation to the consultation of members of the scheme. I think I am quoting him correctly that the override does not affect the duty to consult, that the Government support the continuation of DB schemes and that the rules of such schemes on consultation are not affected by the override.
That deals with the consultation with members of the scheme, but it does not effectively deal with the trustee position, and the role of the trustees is very important in the future of the schemes and in future faith in them. The Minister said that trustees are bound to consult; yes, they are possibly bound to consult. The override clearly applies in his mind, and I presume the intention of the override is that in those schemes that require trustee consent, the employer, using Clause 24 and Schedule 14, can override the need for that consent. That seems a pretty fundamental alternation in the role of trustees. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government would reconsider that position.
I am grateful for the Minister’s view on accrued rights and the fact that Amendment 12 is not, therefore, needed. I am less grateful for his indication that “protected workers” will not apply to those who are protected on the word of the Government of the day but not actually embedded in statute. This applies principally to the gas workers and I suspect I will be in correspondence with him about that.
The central point of this group of amendments is that, in this clause, the Government have, effectively, overridden the governance structure of work-based occupational schemes by attacking the very fundamentals of trusteeship. That is a mistake. Over the years, many changes have been made at the behest of employers and with the agreement of trustees. Some of these were detrimental to future members because of the financial position of the scheme or legislative changes. Trustees are unlikely to be unable to recognise the need for such changes, but to override and delete trustee consent is a very serious step which the Government should be much more hesitant about taking. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and thank the Minister for some of his other remarks.
Lord Freud
“(4) The power may not be used—
(a) to make amendments that apply to a member who is a protected person in relation to a scheme, or(b) to amend a public service pension scheme or a scheme of a description specified in regulations under this paragraph.(5) Regulations must define what is meant by a protected person in relation to a scheme for the purposes of subsection (4)(a).”
Baroness Turner of Camden
Baroness Turner of Camden
My Lords, this is a short amendment dealing with the section of the Bill that allows for the periodic review of rules about pensionable age. When I read it, I was concerned that there was nothing at all about the type of work people undertook before they retired. At Second Reading, I said that there were many people who were quite happy to go on working past normal retirement age but it depends on the kind of job you do, whether you are well paid, whether your job has authority, whether you enjoy your job and so on. However, there are many people who do work that is very necessary if the rest of us are to lead reasonably comfortable lives, such as people who work in construction and other industries where there is strenuous activity and, sometimes, danger. It is not a good idea to have elderly people in this kind of work.
It is too late in the day to make a long statement about this, but if there is to be a review of retirement ages it must be understood that people do very different types of work and it is not a good idea to think that one size fits all. I hope the Government will realise that in a periodic review of retirement ages it is sensible also to take on board the kind of work being looked at and the sort of people who are expected to do it. If they do not, it will not be very popular and may lead to problems in the future. You do not want future problems in a pensions Bill, so I suggest the Government think very seriously about this. I quite like Amendment 17, which is also concerned with a review of how retirement age is judged and brings a range of representatives of parties, including trade unions, into consultation, which is also very sensible. In the mean time, I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 16, I shall also speak to Amendment 17 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Browne. We on these Benches agree with the principle of raising the state pension age to reflect longevity. We accept the need for periodic reviews of the state pension age. Where we differ from the Government is on how best to do that.
Fixing the state pension age is never easy. There is always an issue of fairness at stake. Having a careful, evidence-based review before taking any future decisions on changes to the state pension age is a crucial element of ensuring fairness between generations. However, sometimes fairness requires a consideration of difference, particularly differences in longevity and health. The Government are setting considerable store by actuarial information on average life expectancy. However, while average life expectancy tells us something—mostly quite a lot about medical advances and their ability to keep us alive for longer—it does not tell us very much about our health in retirement or differential mortality rates.
We heard a great deal of evidence in Committee to inform our debate, and I certainly will not rehearse it all here, noble Lords will be relieved to hear. However, maybe the headlines are worth briefly restating. People are living longer, but the proportion of years in full health is not keeping track at the same rate. We have significant inequalities in health within the UK, and significant variations in mortality as a result. There are clear socioeconomic differences. There is a class divide, as managerial and professional classes live longer than manual workers by 3.8 years for women and 3.1 years for men. There is a clear geographical divide.
There is then the effect of this differential life expectancy on state retirement incomes, with the irony that those living the shortest lives post-retirement—the poorest and least skilled workers—will receive less in state pension than their better-off counterparts, but they may well have contributed for longer as a result of having spent less time in education.
If we want people to save for retirement, they need to trust the Government, to trust Parliament and to believe that their pensions are safe in our hands. The public need to know that they will not be at the mercy of political expediency, and that they will be protected from any adjustments that need to be made by ensuring that they are not made too quickly. Rather than simply being a matter for the Secretary of State, as the Bill proposes, we need a genuinely independent panel which has the kind of cross-party and independent representation that will reassure the public and give confidence to parliamentarians from across the spectrum. Our amendment proposes simply that the review body should include representatives of the opposition parties and of the Cross Benches of this House to ensure that Parliament as a whole is at the heart of this process. It would also include representatives of trade unions, who are themselves the representatives of those who are spending their ever-longer working lives saving for retirement. This broader representation will give people confidence that a wide range of views will be heard. I urge the Minister to accept it.
Lord Freud
My Lords, as your Lordships know, the purpose of the review of state pension age is to inform the Government. The reports from the Government Actuary and the independently led review, which will feed into the review, should collect and analyse the latest data, and give the Government of the day the information they need to make what will always be a difficult and contentious decision.
We are all keen that the Secretary of State receives a report that is impartial. Because we are requiring that all reports compiled as part of the review are published and all future changes to state pension age continue to go through primary legislation, any proposal based on a report that is not impartial, credible and comprehensive will quickly fall apart when scrutinised by stakeholders and both Houses of Parliament.
Turning first to the substance of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, if one thing is apparent it is that there is no clear consensus on who should sit on the review, what they should look at, or how they should collect the necessary evidence. We have been clear in Grand Committee and in the other place that this Government’s vision of the review is one similar to the independent review of public service pensions. That review was run by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, a member of the opposition Benches and an expert in his field. It was transparent, comprehensive, independent and established a consensus.
Noble Lords will also be aware that the Pensions Commission, set up by the previous Government, had three commissioners from the areas of business, trade unionism and academia: not a single politician or Cross-Bencher. That commission gained support through comprehensive and open debate about the issues and trade-offs, rather than being based on the inherent characteristics of the commissioners’ backgrounds.
In short, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, would preclude these two successful models. It would result in a body of at least six individuals from stakeholder groups, the other place and this House. It would not necessarily have the expertise to review the relevant data and would effectively create a mini parliamentary process before the parliamentary process proper. We do not think that is the right way to run a review designed to inform the Government. In the Bill as currently drafted there is nothing to prevent a future Government running the review in whatever way they think best. That is a key point underpinning our approach to the review—getting future Governments to take active ownership of and responsibility for all aspects of the review, instead of just going through the motions.
Turning to the factors to be considered as part of any review, I must note that in response to the recommendation made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner and Lady Sherlock, we do not have the data regarding the relationship between specific occupations or types of work and life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. Beginning to collect such data would be both burdensome and, I imagine, for some professions simply impossible. More generally, we do not think it is necessary to specify any factors to be considered in legislation. We have already consulted stakeholders on what factors they think are important, and stated the factors we expect to be considered in the White Paper. The Opposition are worried that by not specifying the factors in legislation, future reviews simply will not consider important variables. However, what kind of support would such a review generate?
We want to encourage all interested parties to feed in their thoughts and contributions to better involve them. Specifying factors in the Bill could send out the message that we have already thought of everything important, and that future Governments do not need to consider additional factors as they are not set out in primary legislation. Such an approach could lead to a tick-box mentality, with Governments simply going through the motions instead of taking a proper, considered approach to each review. My point is illustrated by the fact that another factor has been added to the Opposition’s amendment since its predecessor was tabled only a month or so ago. Other noble Lords have also previously suggested additional factors, including life expectancy of the lowest income decile, prevalence of smoking and quality of diet. This demonstrates that the determination of relevant factors should take place after a thorough and extensive consideration and on an iterative basis for each review.
I turn now to the review’s remit. We believe that the Government should maintain control of this to keep it focused on the task at hand. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State of the day updating the remit of the review, and we—or, more importantly, stakeholders—would fully expect him or her to do just this if new and compelling factors were identified during the course of the review.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also requires evidence to be gathered in public sessions. Although there is nothing in the Bill to prevent some evidence being taken orally—rather as Select Committees do—noble Lords will be aware that the nature of the analysis around state pension age, such as the myriad tables, charts and graphs, does not lend itself well to public sessions. Underpinning our approach is the idea that each Government will fully own and be responsible for the review. Setting out membership and factors to be considered restricts rather than increases that responsibility. It would instead limit the scope of reviews and reduce engagement by stakeholders. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden
I thank the Minister for his response. It does not surprise me, but, on the other hand, I still think that the type of work that people do is very important. There are, of course, already industries in this country in which there are different ages of retirement for different types of work. It is not unusual for that to happen; indeed, it is quite a common practice, if an industry is particularly stressful or difficult, for there to be a lower retirement age for that kind of work. It is not an unusual state of affairs but one that is highly regarded where it applies—and people accept it. They think, “Oh well, that sort of work is very tough, but at least you go a bit early for it. You don’t have to stay and work there—after a certain time you can go”.
My husband, who was a pilot in the war, tried to stay in the Air Force because they were recruiting people to fly civil aircraft when the war ended. He tried to get into civil aircraft because he was a pilot, with decorations, but he was disappointed to find that he could not do so. He wanted to get into the civil air force because they had an early retirement age; he thought that he could retire at 50 and start becoming a full-time artist, which is what he had always wanted to do. But he did not manage to do that. I give that as an example, because the age of retirement was different than for general people. So it is not an unusual situation.
I still think that it is quite sensible to have a provision under which it is possible for a review to take seriously into account the type of work that is involved. However, I note what the Minister has said this evening and I shall study it with interest. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Assessed income period: indefinite period
Notwithstanding sections 28 and 29 above, any recipient of pension credit may from the age of 75 years have his or her assessed income period set for an indefinite period.”
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, pensioners usually have stable incomes, especially compared to those who work, and they do not fluctuate by much. At the moment, existing pensioners on pension credit have their income and thus their eligibility assessed every five years at 65, 70 and 75. Thereafter, no further means-testing is required, although people need to report the death of a spouse or when they move into residential care. The Government are proposing to replace this light-touch system with annual means-testing every year until death, with the modest exemption of those currently already over 75, for whom means-testing has been suspended. All future pensioners will have annual means-testing until they die, which means that they will means-test, for example, a frail, 90 year-old widow.
In Committee, we argued that we would retain the current system of five-year assessments of income for pension credit eligibility and the suspension of means-testing after 75, both of which the Minister wishes to replace with annual means-testing. The Minister was not sympathetic; he tried to suggest to my noble friend Lady Sherlock that the new system would be simpler, whereas on any ordinary understanding of the word it is becoming more complicated. Eventually, he fell back on the necessity of making these savings—all £65 million or so extracted from some of the poorest people in the country.
This amendment is modest and targeted. It would permit the Government to means-test pensioners annually, as they propose to do, until the recipient is aged 75, and from then on as now those means tests would be suspended. Why this proposal? My concerns are threefold. First, the proposed changes will discourage pensioners from claiming pension credit. Secondly, it is profoundly unfair. Thirdly, it is not worth the relatively small savings that may follow.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, in Committee the Minister came under sustained pressure on this matter from my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lord McKenzie, among others, and I am sure that he did not expect to emerge unscathed from Report. Many noble Lords pressed the Minister in Committee to try to understand what the consequences of this increase in means-testing would be. In particular, they were concerned about what would happen to those older pensioners who inadvertently, or perhaps negligently, fail to report changes of circumstances.
The Minister could not assuage our fears in Committee but wrote to us subsequently. That was helpful as it made clear what would happen. The letter he sent to us, dated 20 January, noted that claimants of any age who commit benefit fraud can be prosecuted. However, it also says:
“DWP may offer an Administrative Penalty as an alternative to prosecution. That penalty is 50% of the overpayment with a minimum value penalty of £350 and a maximum of £2000”.
When a claimant makes an error resulting in an overpayment, the letter explains that,
“a DWP decision maker will consider the full circumstances of the individual case … taking into account the reasons that led to the error”.
The letter then referred us to the guidance for decision-makers. I read this guidance so that noble Lords would not have to, and that is an hour of my life that I will not get back, so anyone who feels that he would like to buy me a drink at any point to say thank you is most welcome to do so. However, having done so, I then discovered the following. Incidentally, CPen means civil penalty and DM means decision-maker. The guidance states:
“Before imposing the CPen, the DM must establish that the claimant
1. has acted negligently and
2. has failed to take any reasonable steps to correct the error that led to the overpayment”.
I accept that the word “negligently” implies something serious. However, on the “Meaning of ‘negligently’”, the guidance continues:
“DMs should note that negligently should be taken to mean acting carelessly, not paying sufficient attention to the task in hand, or disregarding the importance of what is required to be done in relation to the claim or an award”.
In other words, that is a pretty low bar.
A number of noble Lords expressed concerns—as has been done very clearly by my noble friend just now—about what happens to pensioners who might struggle to keep the paperwork together or report every relevant change. The letter from the Minister said that robust safeguards are in place to ensure that matters such as mental capacity are considered. However, the guidance also makes clear that misrepresentation can involve simply leaving a section blank, perhaps because someone cannot figure out how to fill it in at that point and forgets to go back and do so later. The guidance also states at paragraphs 09206-7 that a claimant cannot avoid responsibility for misrepresentation just on the grounds that they claim they did not know what they were doing. It states:
“Non-responsibility is limited to those who are blind, illiterate or do not fully understand a particular form they have signed. Poor education, illness or inborn incapacity alone is not sufficient to show non-responsibility. People are expected to take reasonable steps to understand what they sign”.
This is exactly the sort of reason why so many pensioners dread means-testing and do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. If the Minister does not want to accept this amendment tonight, I plead with him to do one thing. Will he please take this guidance away urgently and have it revised before this legislation ever is introduced, so that pensioners are not expected to follow these kinds of rules?
Lord Freud
My Lords, assessed income periods were introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, during the passage of the State Pension Credit Act 2002. At that time it was assumed that income and capital for those above pensionable age remained relatively stable and it therefore made good sense to relax reporting requirements, both for the individual and the department in terms of running costs. This was still the case in 2007 when the Government of the day introduced indefinite assessed income periods for those aged 80 or over.
The noble Baroness said just now that income and capital do not fluctuate by much. We have now tested those assumptions, analysed around 100,000 cases and come to the conclusion that there is actually a greater degree of volatility in people’s financial circumstances than she and the department had anticipated at the relevant times. In some cases, assessed income periods have allowed people to continue to receive pension credit following a change in their circumstances when they would not have been entitled to it had they made a new claim at that point. The evidence means that we have had to think again about the viability of the policy and have concluded that AIPs should be abolished. Ultimately, if we were to allow AIPs to continue, the taxpayer would be providing support to people who no longer need it. It would mean retaining a system in which we can only apply changes to retirement provision that would increase an award but cannot take account of windfalls that would otherwise see a reduction in or loss of benefit.
Let me be clear, we are not changing entitlement rules. We are changing the reporting system so that people’s benefit entitlement reflects their circumstances at the time. To that end, we are looking to simplify the reporting requirements so that we are able to support those who need it most and best target our benefit expenditure. I am of course mindful that by changing reporting requirements some people may find it more difficult to adjust, particularly those of the most advanced years who may have the greatest difficulty in contacting us. This is why existing indefinite assessed income periods in place prior to 2016 will continue.
For those new recipients, or those on fixed-term AIPs, we will have the opportunity to explain clearly what does and does not need to be reported at the point of claim or when their existing claim is reviewed. I stress that pension credit is already designed in such a way as to minimise reporting requirements. For example, changes to capital only need to be reported if their total amount exceeds £10,000. Currently, only 12% of people on pension credit have capital above that level. People would need to report new income streams, but we will continue to take into account annual increases in pensions automatically, based on what people tell us. We will also encourage people to tell us if their capital falls below £10,000 or if any income stops, to ensure that we capture beneficial changes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
When the Minister says that there is no evidence, does that mean that he has sought evidence and there is not any, or does it mean that he simply does not know, or what? Has he evidence to prove that there is no deterrent effect? I suspect that the answer is no.
Lord Freud
Take-up of pension credit guarantee credit, which is aimed at the poorest pensioners, is already high at 82%. However, I think that it would be better if I offered to write to the noble Baroness on the exact nature of the evidence which I do or do not have. Actually, I do not need to write because I can tell her that her second supposition is correct. We do not have any evidence either way. With that covered, I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, I am not going to pretend that I am not disappointed with the Minister’s reply. I thought that he showed a degree of sympathy and understanding in Committee, particularly of the plight of older pensioners in their late 70s or their 80s, or perhaps older still, who are getting increasingly frail and confused. I thought he understood that. That is why in this amendment I dropped the idea of periodic assessments and simply suggested that, while the Minister does what he thinks is appropriate or is required to do on this in terms of having annual means-testing until the age of 75, at least from 75 onwards he could abandon the annual means-testing system.
I really do not think that the Minister has addressed the issue. He said, first, that he thinks that the savings would be reduced by 30%. I suspect that that is a slightly arbitrary figure, arrived at by dividing the number of years and the percentage of savings, but it takes no account whatever of the fact that means-testing will already have excluded pensioners at an earlier stage. I suspect that at least half his savings will come from the fact that pensioners do not claim what they are entitled to, rather than them not getting what they otherwise would by having annual means-testing.
The Minister said that if those under 75 were annually means-tested but those over 75 were not, that would give rise to appeals and disputes. What evidence does he have for that? After all, we have had periodic means-testing since 2008. How many appeals have there been from people under the age of 75 against the “no further means-testing at 75” rule, and what has been the result of those appeals? I shall give way to the Minister. He ran that argument, so I presume that he has some statistics for us.
Lord Freud
I shall have to supply the statistics separately and will do so in writing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, forgive me, but trying to persuade the House that this would generate appeals and disputes and not presenting to noble Lords what is already a firm basis of evidence from the existing situation does not seem acceptable. I rather doubt that the Minister has more than a couple of handfuls of cases but we will see when he digs out his statistics. I just do not think that it is a valid argument and I have not had a shred of evidence from him or the Box to support it, although I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to the contrary.
However, my deepest concern—and it is one that I do not think the Minister has addressed—is just how profoundly unfair this is. I am baffled that he does not seem to accept that argument. He is quite deliberately building means-testing out of the new state pension, and I welcome that wholeheartedly. However, every reason he adduces for building it out of the new state pension applies equally for not continuing to means test after 75. Every argument that supports the new state pension works to support the amendment and not continuing means-testing after 75. If means-testing is so innocent, why get rid of it in the new state pension? The Minister knows, as we all know, on the basis of good and effective DWP research, that means-testing is loathed by pensioners and they do not take up the benefits they are entitled to. That is what the Minister is counting on for his savings and it is profoundly unfair.
Pensioners slightly younger are built out of means-testing because the whole lot of pension credit has been thrown out of their new state pension. One day older and they are not only going to be means-tested but means-tested annually until the day they die, until they are 90. That is shameful. The Minister is widening the gap between younger pensioners, who will be much better off and with no means-testing, and the pensioners who will be staying with the old system, who are already older and poorer and who will have a lower pension and face means-testing. He is widening the disparity rather than narrowing it.
That is not good enough. It is not decent. The Minister is profoundly wrong on this but, given the lateness of the hour, obviously I will not seek the opinion of the House at this time of night. I will withdraw the amendment but with a heavy heart because it is profoundly wrong to widen the gap between older and younger pensioners at a time when we are trying to build means-testing out of the system and the Minister is reinforcing it back in again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.