House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
1. What steps his Department is taking to tackle rogue landlords.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
We are determined to crack down on the small number of rogue landlords who neglect their properties and exploit their tenants. We have provided £6.5 million to local authorities and have recently published a discussion paper on improving property conditions in the private rented sector that focuses on tackling rogue landlords.
Mike Thornton
I am pleased that the Government are taking action on this issue, which affects so many of my Eastleigh constituents. Will the Minister assure me that, as part of the review, he will give adequate consideration to ensuring that rented homes are fitted with life-saving fire and carbon monoxide detectors, particularly as adequate regulations regarding electrical safety in rented houses are sadly lacking?
Kris Hopkins
I can reassure the House that the review will consider both smoke and carbon monoxide alarms. We will also consider whether landlords should be required to carry out regular checks on electrical installations.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
One of the other major problems facing private sector tenants is the actions of letting agents. There was widespread support for the Government’s commitment to a redress scheme, and for the promise made on 20 May last year by the then Housing Minister to have one code of practice to underpin it. However, the Government now say that they cannot go ahead with one code of practice and must rely on voluntary codes, with agents being part of various bodies and with a test of reasonableness in other cases. Why are we not going to have one code of practice? Is it because the Government did not take the necessary powers under the legislation to enable them to do so?
Kris Hopkins
First, the redress scheme will return to the House shortly, and I hope that it will gain all-party support, because it is extremely important for tenants and landlords. Secondly, the code of practice is currently out for consultation and, at the end of that process, we will see what conversations there have been about what shape it should take.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Will the Minister address the serious problem of the exorbitant rents being charged by private sector landlords, particularly in London, and seriously consider introducing a form of regulation so that ordinary people on ordinary incomes are not driven out of the city in which they live?
Kris Hopkins
Rents across the country are at 1.1% at the moment, and in London they have actually fallen, from 1.9% to 1.6% over the last quarter.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Minister’s remark about 1.1% and 1.9% is confusing. Perhaps he can illuminate for the House what he means. Certainly, the rents that my constituents—a quarter of them live in private rented accommodation, which very often is substandard—are being charged are rocketing as people move from London to Slough, so how much have rents gone up in areas, such as Slough, around the outside of London?
Kris Hopkins
Quite often the media headlines on rent prices are the advertised rate. The figures I quoted are from the Office for National Statistics, and they are the actual figures tenants are charged after taking up a residency, so they are actually the true figures, rather than those advertised in the media.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
2. What progress he has made on improving the planning protection afforded to valued and profitable pubs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
We have made it clear through the national planning policy framework that local planning policies and decisions should guard against the unnecessary loss of valued community facilities, such as pubs.
Jack Lopresti
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that designating a local pub as a community asset is an important way of protecting it against being sold off?
Stephen Williams
Yes, I do. I strongly encourage all hon. Members across the House to engage with their local communities, and perhaps with the Campaign for Real Ale, to see what pubs need protection and to get that protection in place before there is a danger of them being sold off.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My local borough has lost 15% of its traditional pubs over the past five years, so what is the Minister actually doing about this, or does he agree with his Conservative colleagues that the loss of pubs to luxury apartments and Tesco Metro stores is just the market at work?
Stephen Williams
I have not heard any Liberal Democrat or Conservative coalition colleagues say that they think that the loss of community pubs is a good thing. In fact, I have heard them say exactly the opposite. That is why we put those provisions in place under the Localism Act 2011, and we all strongly encourage our constituents to take them up. I am pleased that today a new community rights alliance has been set up, comprising CAMRA, Supporters Direct, the Theatres Trust and a variety of civic organisations, precisely to encourage communities to take up those rights and safeguard the assets that are important to them.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
18. Given the Minister’s thoughts about the community right to bid, will he congratulate Rob Stark and his team at the Fox and Hounds pub in Denmead in my constituency? They took on a local developer, bought out the site, raised £200,000 from local people and now own the pub.
Stephen Williams
I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those who now own the pub in Denmead in his constituency of Meon Valley. Not only did they use the community right to bid to protect the pub; they also used a community share issue, another initiative being encouraged by the Government. In that way, communities can not only protect their assets but have a means of raising the funds to give practical application to that right.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am glad that MPs from the Bristol area are taking such an interest in the future of pubs and the impact of their closure; I do not need to tell the Minister about the effect of the many pub closures across Bristol. What effect does he think the changes to permitted development rights will have on pubs in his area and mine?
Stephen Williams
At the moment, councils can use an article 4 direction to suspend the permitted development rights within the broad A class; perhaps the hon. Lady and I could encourage the mayor and planning committee of Bristol to have a look at that and also consider the issue of betting shops, for example, which we do not want to spread.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
3. How much funding his Department is providing to help freeze council tax.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
4. How much funding his Department is providing to help freeze council tax.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
13. How much funding his Department is providing to help freeze council tax.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
More than £800 million of funding is available for a council tax freeze in the next two years; the total amount of funding throughout this Parliament is up to £5.2 billion. That is worth £1,100 for the average household band D property and represents a cut in council tax of 10% in real terms.
Justin Tomlinson
Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming Conservative-controlled Swindon borough council’s decision to freeze council tax for the fourth year in a row? That contrasts starkly with when Labour controlled the council under a Labour Government, when council tax went up by 42% in just three years.
Mr Pickles
Of course the council should be congratulated on its magnificent achievement; no doubt my hon. Friend’s constituents are very pleased. His council joins the seven out of 10 Conservative councils that have frozen council tax compared with only half of Labour councils. Furthermore, two thirds of Conservative police and crime commissioners froze their council tax, but no Labour commissioners have done so.
Nick de Bois
Is the Secretary of State surprised, like me, that despite the extra funding Enfield council insists that it has to make cuts to council tax support for the most deprived? It finds enough money to send highly paid directors and Labour councillors off to France to property conferences.
Mr Pickles
That would not be the property conference in Cannes, by any chance? No doubt that is very enjoyable. It strikes me that my hon. Friend’s council has its priorities all wrong. It should not be attacking the vulnerable, but making sensible savings and protecting the most vulnerable.
Martin Vickers
Two councils serve my constituency. Conservative-controlled North Lincolnshire council is attracting investment, opening new libraries and freezing council tax, whereas neighbouring Labour-controlled North East Lincolnshire council is closing libraries, spending millions on a new swimming pool when the old one could be refurbished and is unable to resist over-development, particularly in the Humberston and New Waltham areas, because its local plan is out of date. On top of that, it is increasing council tax. I urge my right hon. Friend to maintain pressure on all authorities to keep tax down.
Mr Pickles
I certainly join my hon. Friend in urging councils to show restraint in spending. It is ironic to see the contrast between the two authorities—one clearly has the electorate’s wishes on its side, while the other wishes to punish the electorate.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Why does the Secretary of State keep claiming that he is freezing council tax? His actions actually increased it for 700,000 of the poorest working families in this country because of his changes to council tax benefit. Will he now accept that the 10% cut that he imposed hit councils with the biggest number of claimants hardest and made it much more difficult for them to mitigate the effects of the cuts?
Mr Pickles
We localised council tax support, which had continued to grow under Labour. If the hon. Lady is making a commitment to repay that money and put it back, that is interesting. It was costing taxpayers £4 billion a year. It is important that the most vulnerable are protected and councils have the ability to keep the savings they want and invest them in the community. I urge the hon. Lady to give her own council a talking to and to get it sorted out.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State’s answer is not good enough. [Interruption.] Government Members are inviting me to comment on a constituency issue, but I am sure you would want me to be espresso, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State says there is a freeze, but is it not true that lots of councils, including many Conservative authorities such as that of the Prime Minister, are putting council tax up and that the poorest across the country are getting an increase this year because of the cut to council tax support? When will the Secretary of State admit that it is not a freeze, but a sham?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman should, to be frank, wake up and smell the Costa coffee. [Interruption.] I am sure I can do better than that, but I am not entirely sure that the hon. Gentleman can. What we have offered to councils is an opportunity to freeze, but if they want to put up their council tax, that is a matter for them. It seems strange that the increases are just below the referendum threshold. Why do they not show the courage of their commitments and go for 5%, 6% or 7%? I am sure that is what would happen if they were given the chance. We only have to look at Labour in Wales to see council tax going up. Let them show some courage and not be democracy dodgers.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
5. If he will review planning guidance relating to flooding risks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
We are already looking to see what lessons can be learned from recent floods. There are strict tests to protect people and property from flooding, which all councils should follow, and we will underline the importance of that in new planning guidance to be published shortly.
Annette Brooke
I thank the Minister for his answer. Given our changing weather patterns, what advice would he give to local planning authorities and, indeed, planning inspectors on the allocation of housing sites that are identified as having future flood risk, in terms of green spaces, drainage systems, house design and, indeed, a need to find alternative sites?
Nick Boles
Development in flood risk areas must be flood resistant and resilient. That policy is very clear. I would advise inspectors and councils to follow the Environment Agency’s advice to the letter and make sure that all development is resilient to flood risk.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Will the Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State now regrets his intemperate attacks last month on the Environment Agency and its staff over flooding?
Nick Boles
The Government are very clearly supportive of Environment Agency staff and the work it has been doing. That is why we have been funding the Environment Agency to continue to do that work and why we are ensuring that all local councils follow its advice on development.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
At Beesands in my constituency urgent work is needed, not just to repair sea defences, but to enhance them. The rocker arm has been sourced, but the work has been held up because of uncertainty about the need for planning permission. Will the Minister meet me urgently to discuss those uncertainties and the responsibilities for access at neighbouring North Hallsands?
Nick Boles
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. Part 12 of the general permitted development order gives permitted development rights on land belonging to or maintained by local authorities, but there are some restrictions with regard to the scale of such development, so the specific case would not matter. Of course, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Last year, developers proposed 618 construction projects on land the Environment Agency deemed to be at particularly high risk of flooding. Does the Minister still accept the recommendation from the 2009 practice guide to planning policy statement 25 that, for new developments, the best way of reducing flood risk in the area is to control the water at source through sustainable drainage systems? If so, what is he doing to monitor and encourage the use of SUDs in new developments?
Nick Boles
The hon. Lady is right that SUDs can offer a very effective way of dealing with flood risk. I am sure she will welcome, as I do, the fact that the latest figures show that the estimated number of dwellings built within areas of high flood risk in England is now at its lowest rate since records began in 1989.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
6. What assessment he has made of the effects of the local government finance settlement on local authority services for families with young children.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Every part of the public sector has to do its bit to pay off Labour’s record deficit. We have been clear that councils should make sensible savings, and not take the lazy option of cutting front-line services. That is why we have protected the early intervention grant of £2.5 billion —up £100 million for 2014-15.
Sarah Champion
What does the Minister suggest that I say to my constituents who face an additional monthly bill of £160 for child care, following his local government finance cuts to Rotherham that are forcing Sure Starts to close?
Brandon Lewis
I would say to the hon. Lady that apart from the fact that, at the end of November 2013, there were 3,055 children’s centres and 501 additional sites open to families and children—providing children’s centre services as part of the network—local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that they have sufficient children’s centres to meet local need. It is quite right that she keeps the pressure on her council to be sensible about the savings it makes, and to make sure that it puts money into the right front-line services, and does not waste it in useless bureaucracy and management.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Given that a quarter of all Government expenditure is delivered via local government, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important—indeed, essential—for local councils to play their part in reducing the huge deficit we inherited from the previous Labour Government?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. Councils should look to curtail the £2 billion of fraud and error in the system, and the £2 billion of uncollected council tax, to make sure that they are able to provide the front-line services that residents rightly deserve.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the problem is not only half-empty and understaffed children’s centres, but the fact that children’s services in charge of child protection are not able to fulfil that function fully enough?
Brandon Lewis
Again, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that if the local authority in his area is making bad decisions about where its funding goes, he should put pressure on it, and I am very happy to help him to do so.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Cheshire West and Chester’s adoption and fostering services have recently been rated the best in the north-west. The council has achieved that by working and combining resources with two Labour councils, Halton and Knowsley. Does that not show that if councils work together to reduce costs, they can improve services as well?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend gives a very good example not just of cross-party work, but of bringing different agencies and authorities together with the kind of shared, structural approach that delivers a much better service for less. That is exactly what residents want, and it is the right way to spend taxpayers’ money.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
7. What steps he is taking to help local shops and firms with their business rate bills.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
At the end of last year, the Government announced a £1 billion business rates support package, which includes a £1,000 discount for smaller shops, pubs and restaurants, and a 50% discount for businesses taking on long-term empty shops, and which doubles small business relief for another year, helping just over 500,000 small businesses.
Charlie Elphicke
What help does the Minister think the £1,000 cut in business rates will provide to Deal in my constituency? As he knows, Deal was recently named as having the high street of the year.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is quite right. I enjoyed visiting Deal recently to see the success that it has made of its high street, with small independent shops working together with the town council and the local authority. The £1,000 discount will be important, particularly to those small independent shops, and it comes on top of the national insurance benefit that they will get from April. That means that they will have a lower cost line and therefore be able to take more income that they can use to reinvest and, I hope, to employ more people, and so see Deal go from strength to strength.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The reality is that, despite what the Minister says, business rates have risen by £1,500 on average since the last election and are due to rise by a further £270. It is the straw that is breaking the back of many local businesses. When will he really do something about it, instead of just bluster?
Brandon Lewis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, because it allows me just gently to remind him that, under the Labour Government, I do not remember any Opposition Members looking completely to review business rates or to do something about them—unlike this Government, who have just announced a £1 billion package, particularly to help businesses in and around our high streets to go from strength to strength, because we care about our high streets and the communities they serve.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
8. What representations he has received in support of the case for making the installation of smoke alarms mandatory in all privately rented accommodation. [R]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
Representations have been received from a range of organisations, including the Chief Fire Officers Association. We recently published a discussion paper on property conditions in the sector, which invites views on whether smoke alarms should be mandatory in privately rented accommodation. The deadline for comments is 28 March.
Mr Raynsford
I first draw attention to my interest that is declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Given the overwhelming evidence that smoke alarms save lives and given that the cost of installing a smoke alarm with a 10-year battery is between only £15 and £20, will the Minister stop hiding behind the regulatory burden excuse that is all over the consultation paper to which he referred and accept that we need the mandatory installation of smoke alarms in private rented housing as soon as possible?
Stephen Williams
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not hiding behind anything. A consultation is happening and the deadline for comments is just 25 days away, so I think that we can wait until then. He is right that there has been a dramatic fall in the number of deaths in the home as a result of fire. It is at its lowest level since records began.
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
On Christmas day in 1984 in my former constituency of Bury North, nine people, including four children, were killed in a house fire on Massey street due to the combination of a lit cigarette, somebody falling asleep, the presence of foam-filled furniture and there being no smoke alarm. Does my hon. Friend agree that, no matter what great advances there have been in fire safety over the years, every time a family go to sleep without a smoke alarm, they are at risk? There is no reason not to pursue having mandatory fire alarms in rented property as soon as possible.
Stephen Williams
I have much sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says. We all have a role to play as parliamentarians. Every six months when the clocks go back or forward, the Department uses that opportunity to remind people to check the smoke alarms that they have in place, and to remind householders and landlords that having a smoke alarm in place is good practice. We are having the consultation and it is possible that we will take further measures, but let us wait another 25 days.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
Is not the lesson from all the evidence that is emerging from the private rented sector that we need stronger regulation? What will the Minister do about all the horror stories that are emerging?
Stephen Williams
Where there are horror stories, local authorities have powers to act. They can serve an improvement notice on a landlord. If a landlord does not take action, the local authority can take action itself. The consultation document looks at other measures that might be put in place. For instance, when equipment in a property is found to be defective, perhaps the redress should be a rent refund for the tenant. That would probably concentrate landlords’ minds.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Given that people are four times more likely to die in a fire if there is no smoke alarm installed in their home, have we not got to the situation where, if a private landlord does not install and properly maintain an alarm in the home, they are breaching a common law duty to properly look after their tenants and could be sued for breaching that duty of care?
Stephen Williams
My right hon. Friend is asking me to look back at my notes from more than 20 years ago about the law of tort to see whether that is the case. We are considering whether such powers should be introduced. I understand that smoke alarms are not mandatory in social housing either, so perhaps there are two houses to be put in order, as it were.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
9. What assessment he has made of the effect of spending reductions on the work of fire and rescue services.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
17. What assessment he has made of the effect of spending reductions on the work of fire and rescue services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Fire and rescue authorities are best placed to assess and manage their services. They do that through integrated risk management planning. Thankfully, fire and rescue authorities now attend 46% fewer incidents than 10 years ago. They are certainly in the position to best allocate their resources according to local risk.
Tom Blenkinsop
The number of fire calls to Cleveland fire brigade has risen by more than 54% in the past year and the number of deliberate fires has increased by almost 60% from 1,390 in 2012-13 to more than 2,200 in 2013-14. Does the Minister agree that the Department’s cuts, with £4 million cut so far and a further £5.96 million to come, to one of the most high-risk fire authorities in England are hindering the brigade’s ability not only to respond, but to prevent fire-related incidents?
Brandon Lewis
I do not agree with that comment at all. Putting aside the fact that fire authorities were protected from cuts in the first couple of years, it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman makes that comment about Cleveland which, despite his claims, has managed to almost double its reserves over the past couple of years. Perhaps it should spend more of that money on front-line services.
Natascha Engel
The unfair local government funding formula means that counties such as Derbyshire are disproportionately affected by the Government’s cuts. Will the Minister look again at funding for rural authorities to ensure that Derbyshire’s excellent fire and rescue service will not be jeopardised, and can continue to save lives?
Brandon Lewis
The settlement this year was fair to rural and urban authorities, and we had a strong debate on that in the House. The Government have put an extra £11.5 million into supporting rural areas. The hon. Lady’s fire authority has managed to increase reserves by £3 million in the last couple of years, so clearly it is finding that it has enough funds.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The Minister will know of the disquiet about the decision of Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service to make its chief fire officer redundant and then to reappoint him almost immediately. Will he assure the House that he will issue robust guidelines to ensure that such practices are not repeated?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a fair point. As he knows, I have written to Cambridgeshire fire and rescue service. The road it has gone down is questionable with the level of cost for the chief fire officer, but it must make those decisions locally. The Government have made their position clear, and I will soon respond more widely to the issues as part of our response to the Knight review.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Two years ago, Wiltshire fire and rescue service was given the opportunity to raise an extra 10p per week per household in the local council tax and it was one of the lowest cost fire services to council tax payers. It is even proposing to merge its back office with that of Dorset fire service, such is its commitment. That being the case, can the Minister find a way to repeat the invitation to Wiltshire fire and rescue service so that it can protect front-line fire and rescue services, which have been hard at work during the recent floods?
Brandon Lewis
The fire authority, with many others, has done great work during the floods both locally and with mutual aid. We should all be grateful to them for that work. In terms of the de minimis, we did that last year. It was not put in place this year, but obviously we review such matters annually.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Excluding London, the West Midlands, West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester fire and rescue services are experiencing the worst cuts despite having the highest number of incidents. Will the Minister assure me and the House that there will be no impact on response times?
Brandon Lewis
Local decisions on the application of budget usage are made by local fire chiefs. When the hon. Lady looks at those authorities, she should also look at their spending powers. We find that areas with most need have the highest spending power.
Lyn Brown
I note that the Minister did not answer the question. The Chief Fire Officers Association says that the cuts will have a profound impact on operational response. The Minister’s policy encourages a significant increase in the number of retained firefighters. He will know, as will the House, that despite the fact that retained firefighters do an excellent job, they do not sit in a fire station waiting for an emergency call. I will give the Minister another chance to answer and to tell the House what assessment he has made of the impact of his cuts and his policies on response times.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments about the retained fire service. She should be aware that they do a phenomenal service throughout the country. In many areas they are the bulk of the service, and during the recent strikes—I note that she did not ask the Fire Brigades Union not to strike, nor did she condemn it—they were the backbone of keeping this country safe. They have done a super job. We are all in the fortunate position of seeing fire response times reacting; call-outs are falling to their lowest level for 10 years because of the service’s great prevention work. The fire service’s key work is prevention so that it does not need to respond in the first place.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the Government consider putting the flood and rescue work of fire crews on a statutory basis, and will he thank them for their excellent work in the recent winter floods? I recall the young man who died of hypothermia in the Hull floods in 2007 because none of the emergency services had the requisite cutting equipment to free him.
Brandon Lewis
The current legislation recognises the fire sector’s response to flood work. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 and the 2012 fire and rescue national framework detail the role and powers of fire and rescue authorities in respect of emergency response and rescue, including flooding. My discussions with fire chiefs have revealed that that is what they are happy with; they like the current situation.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
10. What guidance he has issued to local authorities on prioritising (a) members of the armed forces and (b) local residents for social housing; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support the fact that this Government have published guidance strongly encouraging councils to prioritise members of the armed forces and their families for social housing. In December we issued guidance on ensuring that local homes go to local people.
Michael Fabricant
That guidance seems to show remarkable common sense, but what further steps can my hon. Friend take to ensure that housing associations and local councils that allocate housing publish precisely the criteria on which they do so, because they should be answerable to the electorate?
Kris Hopkins
Our new guidance will ensure that only those who have lived in the area for two years or more, or those from a well-established local association, can put their name down on the housing waiting list. The guidance also encourages councils to be more open and transparent about who is applying and how the housing is being allocated in their local area to strengthen public confidence in the allocation system.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
Next month marks the 40th anniversary of local government reorganisation, when the word “local” was diluted. Does the Minister agree that localism means local councils making local decisions that should not be subject to diktat from central Government?
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
11. What steps he is taking to promote neighbourhood planning.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
16. What steps he is taking to promote neighbourhood planning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
Neighbourhood planning is proving to be one of the Government’s most popular reforms. Nearly 1,000 communities across England are working on neighbourhood plans, and all eight of the plans to go to referendum thus far have commanded popular support.
Mark Pawsey
The pre-submission draft of Coton Park neighbourhood plan in my constituency is now ready for approval. It covers 950 properties. The team of residents who are drawing it up, ably led by Jill Simpson-Vince, are able to be close to the economic factors and have identified a number of key issues in respect of transport and social well-being. Does the Minister agree that Coton Park sets an excellent example of how a well-run neighbourhood plan process can give people a real say in improving their local areas?
Nick Boles
I greatly enjoyed visiting Coton Park with my hon. Friend and meeting Jill Simpson-Vince. It is a textbook case of how a community can come together to improve their lives through neighbourhood planning.
Andrea Leadsom
In 2010, Northamptonshire council leaders rightly decided that the best way to get a local plan in place quickly was to stick with Labour’s west Northamptonshire joint planning unit. Can my hon. Friend confirm that if they should wish to get rid of this undemocratic body once the local plan is completed, I hope in March this year, they need only write to his office requesting that it be disbanded?
Nick Boles
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend’s local authorities on making sure that the best is not the enemy of the good. She is absolutely right that the constituent authorities would need only to write to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ask for the order to be revoked.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)
Will the Minister congratulate residents of Barne Barton in my constituency on the work they are putting in, with the Ministry of Defence, to get the neighbourhood plan together? Locally, the Ministry of Defence is really helpful with very sensitive land issues. However, there is a clear lack of understanding of the statutory remit as regards what is in and what is out in relation to neighbourhood plans. Will he therefore undertake to talk to colleagues in other land-owning Departments, and will he ensure that the Defence Infrastructure Organisation is included, because it clearly has problems with this?
Nick Boles
I thank the hon. Lady and, indeed, the Opposition parties for supporting neighbourhood planning, because it is a really worthwhile endeavour. I am very happy to talk to all Departments and agencies about their responsibility to co-operate with it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
What happens when a local neighbourhood seeks to protect a statutory designation such as green-belt land against the wishes of a local authority, particularly in metropolitan areas where such land is at a premium?
Nick Boles
The protections for green-belt land in the national planning policy framework are as strong as they have ever been in any planning policy. Green-belt land can be revised to meet other needs only by local authorities through the local plan process, and it can happen only after intense consultation and in exceptional circumstances.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
22. Kirklees council has restarted its local development framework process, but it does not expect to have a local plan in place until early 2017. Until then, unscrupulous developers are using the void to build on provisional open land. Will the Minister clarify whether the council can do anything to stop those developments, which are against local wishes in many cases?
Nick Boles
First, no development should go ahead unless it can be made acceptable—unless it can be shown to be sustainable according to policies in the national planning policy framework. That gives my hon. Friend’s local authority lots of grounds to check whether a development is acceptable. Secondly, it is not good enough to have a local plan in place in 2017. This is the beginning of 2014, and the local authority should get a move on.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
12. What assessment he has made of the effect of the local government finance settlement on council services in Liverpool.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Councils must continue to play their part in tackling Labour’s budget deficit. Liverpool will have a spending power per dwelling of £2,595 per household, some £500 more than the average for England.
Steve Rotheram
So no real assessment, and certainly no cumulative impact assessment. Has the Minister seen today’s Liverpool Echo, which highlights the human cost of the Government’s 52% cut to our city’s budget? With a further £156 million of savings to find, will the Minister say what exactly he believes will be left to cut?
Brandon Lewis
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes back to Mayor Anderson in Liverpool and reminds him that he should be using his £136.5 million of reserves properly, and collecting uncollected council tax that currently costs every tax-paying household in Liverpool £500. Perhaps the mayor should also address the fact that he spends a quarter of his net budget on cultural events, including £650 a day on a Labour spin doctor, a £90,000 car, and £2 million on Beatles memorabilia now worth £300,000.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
14. What assessment he has made of the level of rent arrears in social housing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
The Homes and Communities Agency reported in February that the median level of arrears among larger housing associations in the third quarter of 2013-14 was 3.9%, an improvement on 4.1% in the previous quarter.
Julie Hilling
Nine out of 10 disabled people are cutting back on food or bills to pay the bedroom tax, and many are now falling into rent arrears. If the Minister was in their position, would he fall into debt, or would he cut back on his heating or eating?
Kris Hopkins
There are currently lots of data about arrears, and lots of rhetoric. We have not yet completed a full year, but the Homes and Communities Agency has looked at larger providers, 92% of which say that 95% of the rent they should have collected has been collected.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
23. Two thirds of households in England affected by the bedroom tax have fallen into rent arrears, and Newcastle is having to set aside money to pay for bad debt that should go on building houses. At the same time, many of my most vulnerable constituents live in fear of falling into arrears. Why will the Government not have a heart, see sense, and repeal this terrible tax?
Kris Hopkins
I, too, am concerned about those vulnerable people, so I asked about what was happening in Newcastle. Rough sleeping is down by a third, and homeless acceptances are down 26%. The number of families in bed and breakfasts for longer than six weeks has remained static: latest figures state that there are no people in B and Bs for more than six weeks.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
15. What assessment he has made of the frequency of the use of article 4 directions by local authorities to restrict the concentration of houses in multiple occupation in residential areas; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
Local authorities must inform my Department whenever they make an article 4 direction. We are aware of 47 directions issued in relation to houses of multiple occupation.
Steve McCabe
My constituents in Selly Oak ward in Birmingham are plagued by the constant conversion of three and four-bedroom family homes into seven and 10-bedroom houses of multiple occupation, without any regard for the impact on their lives. Does the Minister agree that planning officers in Birmingham have a route to tackle that through article 4 directions, and that they should stop making excuses and get on with it?
Nick Boles
Absolutely. My understanding is that Birmingham city council recently consulted on introducing just such an article 4 direction, and it would certainly seem to be an appropriate circumstance to look at such a thing.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
19. What steps he is taking to increase the uptake of right to buy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent sales figures in Harlow, which are already four times higher than they were forecast to be for the year. The reinvigorated right to buy scheme has helped more than 16,200 social tenants to become home owners since it was reintroduced or reinvigorated in April 2012. We are legislating for further right to buy discounts and to reduce the qualifying period from five years to three. We are also putting in place a right to buy agent service that will support tenants through the home buying process.
Robert Halfon
Does my hon. Friend agree that an essential component of social justice is to allow lower earners to own their own home? Is he aware that 74 residents in Harlow have supported my online RightToBuyHarlow.com website to get on the housing ladder? Will the Minister outline how he is communicating with tenants to make even more of them aware of the right to buy opportunities?
Kris Hopkins
The Government remain absolutely committed to ensuring that tenants are aware of, and understand, right to buy. We have sent more than 1 million leaflets to social landlords, and our website had 100,000 visitors in the past month alone. We are continuing to campaign with tenants to ensure that they know their rights on how they can secure their own home.
Mr Speaker
Excellent. We got through the lot. I am most grateful to colleagues for their succinctness. [Interruption.] It is well done to the House.
We come to topical questions. I call Mr Dave Watts.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why hard-pressed—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is a figure of such distinction that he is ahead of himself. Question No. 1: that is all he has to say at this stage.
Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
I am sure the supplementary question will be very good, Mr Speaker.
I would like to update the House on the Government’s ongoing work on flood response and recovery. The Somerset levels continue to face significant flooding, and the threat from extreme high levels of groundwater will remain for some months in parts of the country. However, across the country local recovery efforts are well under way. I can reassure the House that the Government are determined in their efforts to support all those affected to get back on their feet. The Government have today announced a £2 million package to encourage holidaymakers, from home and abroad, to see for themselves that areas affected by flooding are now open for business.
Mr Pickles
We have made a number of changes. First, we have given local authorities the freedom to be able to do that. Under the previous regime they did not have that freedom. Secondly, rather than pretending that food banks do not exist, we have allowed local authorities and various Government agencies to signpost them.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
T4. We heard how much success there has been in neighbourhood planning across the country, but a great many communities that are a lot smaller than average would love to indulge in some sort of neighbourhood planning. Will the Minister consider introducing neighbourhood planning-lite for such communities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)
We have, I think, now reached the point where there has been enough experience of neighbourhood planning with enough different kinds of communities for us to learn lessons and to ask whether there is not a version of neighbourhood planning that might be more easily accessible and quicker for some communities. We are doing that work, and we are very keen to hear from any hon. Members and communities with their thoughts on how we can achieve that.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Leeds city region will become a combined authority in April, but at present York cannot formally join because its boundary is not contiguous. On 28 October 2013, I asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would respond to the city region’s proposal to deal with this. He described it as wholly sensible and said:
“I am confident we will have a resolution before Christmas.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 690.]
However, in a written answer last week the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) said that
“we are now considering consulting before the summer on a Legislative Reform Order”.—[Official Report, 24 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 120W.]
Given the clear assurance that the Secretary of State gave me, will he gently say to his hon. Friend that he should get a move on?
Mr Pickles
I did not specify which Christmas I meant. However, I gave the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking, and it was a proper undertaking. Various legal obstacles were put in our way, but we intend to consult, and, subject to the position being legally satisfactory, there will be a resolution. Given that I gave an undertaking from the Dispatch Box to resolve the matter, I will not lightly do otherwise.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful for that assurance. I hope that the Leeds city region will now see things speeding up.
Let me turn to the profoundly unfair way in which the Secretary of State is treating local government. He tells us—and we heard it a moment ago from the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis)—that spending power per household is the proper way in which to compare council funding. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as a result of the plans that he has set out, within four years local spending power will be higher in Wokingham than it will be in Leeds, Sheffield or Newcastle, although they face much greater pressures? Most people would say that that is unfair and impossible to justify. Why does the Secretary of State think that areas in greater need should receive less?
Mr Pickles
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that it was on the urging of the Labour party that we adopted the spending power regime. He will also recall that we moved from a need element to a consequence element. Those who are prepared to have houses built and to provide additional facilities to improve their tax position will benefit. We have moved from a system of the begging bowl to a system in which consequences follow economic and entrepreneurial activity.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
T5. The Secretary of State will be aware that Rugby borough council is not just freezing council tax but reducing it by 3%, while Warwickshire county council is raising it by 1.9%. However, the county council has chosen now as the time to present proposals for a unitary authority. Given those contrasting approaches to the setting of council tax, can the Secretary of State suggest any reasons why my constituents would consider the unitary proposals to be a good idea?
Mr Pickles
I said before the last general election that any authority official who came to me with a proposal for a reorganisation would be met with a pearl-handled revolver that I kept in my desk. It sounds as though it is time to oil the thing again.
We have no intention of carrying out a reorganisation. Any spending on a reorganisation is a fundamental waste of taxpayers’ money.
Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
T2. When his party was in opposition, the Prime Minister described homelessness and rough sleeping as a disgrace. Last week the Department published figures which showed that since 2010, rough sleeping had increased by 37%. How would the Minister describe that record?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
Rough sleeping in the country overall has increased by 5%, and it has fallen by 3% in London.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
There are neighbourhood plans in Chalford, Dursley, Eastington and nearly a dozen other areas in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that a good neighbourhood plan is an appropriate protector against inappropriate developments?
Nick Boles
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I look forward to visiting his constituency with him in the near future to see the planning work being done in some of his communities and by his local authority.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
T3. The Secretary of State recently announced that in response to the recent floods in the south and south-west of England, the Bellwin formula threshold would be ignored, and the Government would pay 100% instead of the normal default of 85%. On 19 February, the Prime Minister announced that people who had been forced out of their homes would be exempt from council tax for the duration. I have a huge amount of sympathy for those people who have been affected by flooding, but, in the interests of fairness, will the Secretary of State confirm that the same proposals will be extended to cover the authorities and households that were affected by flooding in the north of England in 2012?
Mr Pickles
The sums relate to those affected in the north of England and the rest of the country just before Christmas of last year. I concede that we have made a fundamental change to the system. It probably was long overdue. We will be consulting about the long-term. For the sake of clarity, I should say we have not changed the threshold; all we have done is disregarded the amount paid for the education authority and for fire, which means the threshold effectively drops.
Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
T10. May I again thank the Secretary of State for coming to Pagham last week?On another matter, many park home residents, including many in my constituency, are frequently charged unreasonable management fees by unscrupulous site owners. This Government tightened the legislation to give extra protection to residents so far as pitch fees are concerned, but there is less protection in respect of management fees, which some site owners are now using instead of the pitch fee to extract unreasonable sums of money from their residents. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State look into this issue to see what further protections can be introduced to protect park home residents from predatory site owners?
Kris Hopkins
The Government have introduced a whole range of guidance and rules associated with protecting residents on park home sites, including stopping owners of sites undermining sales on sites, and making sure fees on a site can be introduced only after the exchange of a statutory form; the individual tenant can then seek an arbitrary intervention if they need to. Other steps, such as to do with the rules associated with a particular site, can be taken only after consultation with the tenant. One of our interventions serves as an example: up until now a tenant could not purchase gas bottles from anywhere but on-site; they can now purchase them wherever they want to.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
T6. In Redcar and Cleveland, between 2003 and 2007 the Tory and Liberal Democrat council raised council tax by 25%, and they raised the chief executive’s pay by £60,000 from £83,000 to £143,000 in just four years. Does the Secretary of State support local Tory and Lib Dem councillors doing that?
Mr Pickles
I would take the same position if it were a Labour council: it is a matter of local choice. What we have done is create a situation where those kinds of choices have to be made before the electorate, and the electorate have to come to a view on them. Prior to that, councillors in what would formerly have been described as smoke-filled rooms could decide these things among themselves without any transparency before the electorate. I think the hon. Gentleman should trust the people.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Adult victims of human trafficking are looked after centrally through an excellent scheme run by the Salvation Army. Unfortunately, child victims of human trafficking are left to local government to look after and are quite often re-trafficked within a week of being rescued. Will the Secretary of State look at the possibility of removing that role from local government and bringing it under a central plan, as we do for adult victims?
Kris Hopkins
I will take on board what my hon. Friend says, but may I just reassure him that this Government have allocated £4.1 million to tackling rogue landlords, and human trafficking is one area in which the authorities are intervening, so work is being done on that?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
T7. Residents, constituents and firefighters from across Newcastle are writing to me shocked and angered by the proposed closure of Gosforth fire station. Before the Prime Minister was elected to office, he promised that front-line services would not be impacted, but this Government are cutting Tyne and Wear fire authority’s budget by 23% by 2017. How on earth does the Secretary of State believe it can lose a quarter of its funding without that having an impact on front-line services?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
This body has had a cut of a couple of per cent. in spending power for each of the past couple of years, and has built up its reserves and been able to spend that on extra training facilities when the Government already have a training facility. The hon. Lady should put pressure on that fire chief to make sure he is making his decisions based on local risk. The local risk decision is one that only the local fire service can make.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
My constituents in Shipley are sick to the back teeth of Labour-run Bradford council imposing decisions on them against their wishes and their interests, particularly in planning. It is perfectly clear that the council cares only about its heartlands in Bradford, rather than Shipley. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) is, helpfully, now a Minister in the Department. Not long ago, he said that we should look at having a local authority for just the Keighley and Shipley constituencies, thus taking us out of the Bradford district. I agree with that, and I am sure my constituents do wholeheartedly, so how can we make progress on that, particularly given his elevated position?
Mr Pickles
It looks like I am going to need more than a revolver. We have no plans to break up the Bradford metropolitan authority, and it always struck me that, no matter whether someone was Conservative or Labour, Shipley by and large ran Bradford.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
T9. Given the financial realities faced by local councils, many valued facilities such as libraries, community centres and swimming pools are being closed. The Localism Act 2011 gives an opportunity for groups to register such facilities as community assets, but that often just buys time, with more obstacles being placed in the way. What assurances can the Secretary of State give to streamline the process of community asset transfer, so that these vital community facilities do not close?
Mr Pickles
I had the opportunity of being briefed by the hon. Gentleman on this local issue. When local councils are transferring an asset it is immensely important that they do not see this as primarily a commercial issue and go for the maximum amount. He has within his constituency a way of ensuring that the two swimming pools are kept open and run efficiently, and that the green belt, which he mentioned earlier, is not threatened. That seems to be a very logical thing to do.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Reigate and Banstead borough council is very close to approving a core strategy, after five years and three iterations, that is, frankly, in violation of the national planning policy guidance on the green belt. Will my right hon. and hon. Friends examine this situation as a matter of urgency?
Nick Boles
I would, of course, be happy to meet my hon. Friend to investigate any concerns he has. It is very important that these plans are produced after full local consultation and where the local council is in the driving seat.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that a basis for funding fire services that does not take into account the specific risks in an area such as Cleveland, which has the highest concentration of COMAH—control of major accident hazards—sites, means that the funding settlement is neither fair nor safe?
Brandon Lewis
No, I would not agree with that. Local risk is something that local fire chiefs will base their budget plans on, and those will be approved by the fire authority. Again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that Cleveland’s fire authority cannot be short of money because it has managed to increase its reserves in the past couple of years.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Why does the Minister think Wiltshire council is yet to adopt a local development framework for the north of the county? What advice would he give to bring some order to planning and development around Chippenham and Corsham?
Nick Boles
It is probably fair to concede that for a council that has recently become unitary this is an intensely complicated process. Nevertheless, that council knew that it was taking on the responsibility and it now needs to get a move on and complete the plan.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The only sport that is equally participated in by girls and boys is swimming. I do not know whether the Secretary of State can swim, but unfortunately many young people in this country still grow up unable to swim, which poses a threat in later life. Can he tell me how many swimming pools in this country have been closed since this Government came to power? If he is not able to give me a precise number now, perhaps he could write to me later.
Mr Pickles
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, I will write to him, if figures are available. Diligent Members of Parliament can certainly take actions to save valuable swimming pools if they get cracking.
Mr Speaker
It has to be said that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is hiding his light under a bushel, because I am advised that he is a most accomplished swimmer. As he has chosen not to inform the House of that fact, I am generously doing so on his behalf.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Residents in the village of Eastry in my constituency are concerned about an unauthorised Travellers’ development that has just appeared. What actions can councils take on the matter, and can their powers be strengthened?
Brandon Lewis
Obviously, the local council should be looking through its local plan, if it has one. The policies were published last August, with a guide to local authorities about their powers. I encourage them to use them, as they are simple and clear for both residents and councillors. I am also happy to meet my hon. Friend if he wishes to have a further conversation on this.
Points of Order
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week we learned that insurance actuaries had been able to obtain 13 years of hospital medical records on every NHS patient in the country. A report on the use of the data said that the 188 million records were at individual episode level, and the hospital data obtained had many identifiers, including diagnosis, age, gender, area where the patient lived, date of admission and discharge. On Thursday, in a debate in Westminster Hall, the public health Minister, who is in her place, said that she wanted to put it on the record that the data released to the insurance actuaries were publicly available, non-identifiable and in aggregate form. The Minister’s comments on the data released are at complete variance with the reported facts, which were also discussed extensively at the Health Committee last week. There is now a further damaging story in the news that that released patient data were made available online. I understand that the Health and Social Care Information Centre has today had to ask a company to take down a tool that used that hospital patient data online.
May I ask you, Mr Speaker, whether the public health Minister has sought your permission to correct the record from Thursday’s debate. Furthermore, has the Health Secretary asked to make a statement about NHS patient data being made available online?
Mr Speaker
Not at the moment. I can say to the hon. Lady that the public health Minister did indicate to me a willingness to respond to her intended point of order. The Minister is in her place, and we should hear from her now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond directly. In responding to the Westminster Hall debate on Thursday 27 February and in relation to the points made by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) concerning the release of information to the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, I did say that the data that were used were
“publicly available, non-identifiable and in aggregate form.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 212WH.]
I was made aware on Friday 28 February that the information I had to hand during the debate did not include the latest clarification received from the Health and Social Care Information Centre. I therefore wrote to the Chair of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), on Friday to inform him of that. I have today formally written to him and the Members who were present at the debate to correct the statement, and I have copied that to the House of Commons Library.
The correct position was that the faculty requested pseudo-anonymised information and said it would publish it only as anonymous information with all identifiers stripped out. My assertion that the data provided to the faculty were anonymised and publicly available was therefore incorrect, for which I offer my apologies to the House, the shadow Minister, who is in his place, and Members who attended the debate. In handling this request, the NHS information centre did not treat this as a request for sensitive information.
Once again, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for affording me this opportunity and I apologise for the fact that my comments during the debate provided an incorrect impression of the actual events.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for what she said. It does seem to constitute a most full apology to and an explanation for the benefit of the House. We will leave the matter there. [Interruption.] We will not have a “further to” I am afraid. This matter has been fully addressed. If Members have totally unrelated points of order on completely different subjects, we will hear from them—in other words, for the avoidance of doubt, on matters not appertaining to that which has just been said. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) intends to embark on entirely new terrain.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, I have been in this House a reasonable length of time, but something happened to me last Thursday that I do not recall having experienced before. I tabled a question, which in the preliminary agenda was signified as being question No. 7 for the next day. It was a question about my calling for the setting up of a royal commission on the link between climate change and flooding. By the time I got here on Thursday, the full agenda for the day—the Order Paper—had eliminated that question, and transferred it elsewhere. It was clearly a question to a climate change Minister. Why did it disappear and who allowed it to disappear?
Mr Speaker
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, who has indeed been in the House for a goodly number of years—it will be 35, to be precise, on 4 May this year—is as follows, and I hope that he will take it in the appropriate spirit. It is entirely a matter for Ministers as to whether they make transfers. The transfer that took place, though immensely disagreeable to the hon. Gentleman, was entirely orderly, and I conclude by saying in the friendliest possible way to him that there are Members who do have something about which to complain but are disinclined to do so and there are Members who sometimes have very little about which to complain but make a very considerable meal out of doing so. It is my firm conviction that the hon. Gentleman has precious little about which to complain, and he is doing his best to make a very large mountain out of an extremely small molehill. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is chuntering from a sedentary position about what I did when I was a Back Bencher, but that was then and this is now.
Estimates Day
supplementary estimates 2013-14
Managing Flood Risk
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome this opportunity to open this estimates day debate on managing flood risk. To put today in context, this is the day of the memorial service in honour of Nelson Mandela; it is a week after the visit by the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, to address both Houses of Parliament; and it is a day on which the future of Crimea and the rest of Ukraine remains very uncertain. In its own way, though, what we meet to discuss today is equally international and portentous in its nature, as we have seen some of the most damaging storms, most likely emanating, we are told, from the Atlantic on the jet steam and causing immense damage in 2013-14.
I am delighted to welcome the Minister to his place. We were most fortunate to enjoy his company on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and indeed that of the shadow Minister, when we adopted this report in July 2013. How prescient that report appears with hindsight. We have had record rainfall over the past two years, which has led to the most extensive flooding, cost the economy millions of pounds, and caused disruption and distress to householders and communities across the UK.
Additional capital funding for flood defences is welcome, since we are told that every £1 spent on flood defences to protect communities spurs growth and delivers economic benefits worth £8. However, we concluded that spending on flood defences has simply not kept pace with increasing risks from more frequent severe weather. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must ensure that investment increases by some £20 million year on year. We need that money over the next 25 years to protect homes and businesses better. Maintenance of these defences and the effective dredging of watercourses must be a priority.
Miss McIntosh
I should like initially to set out our overview before I take interventions.
The Committee welcomes proposals for a new Flood Re insurance scheme, to ensure that everyone is able to get affordable insurance. We are told that the scheme will be funded by a small levy of about £10.50 a year on all household insurance customers. The Committee insisted, during the passage of the Water Bill, that safeguards be introduced to keep the costs down. It would be interesting if the Minister confirmed whether the Prime Minister has asked for the band H and certain other exclusions to be brought into the review of Flood Re, as was reported over the weekend.
The Government is an insurer of last resort. We were told in evidence that, if there were a one-in-250-year event, such as the one that we have just seen, in the first two or three years of Flood Re coming into effect, the Government would take over as insurer of last resort. We were also told that, for the first two or three years of the Flood Re scheme, there simply would not be enough money in the pot to fund such claims against it. The House needs to understand the implications of that eventuality.
Delay by the Government and the insurance industry in agreeing the provision of affordable flood insurance has caused householders unnecessary uncertainty. The opaque cross-subsidy in the current statement of principles must be translated into a more transparent scheme with clear and robust governance arrangements. This debate provides a useful opportunity for the Minister to update the House on progress towards state aid approval in Brussels, because the last we heard was that had not been embarked upon, which seems to be leaving it late in the day. It raises other exclusions in addition to band H, such as why the cut-off year of 2009 was chosen, and why small businesses such as farms remain excluded.
With spending on the maintenance of defences and watercourses apparently at its lowest for many years, short-sighted reductions in revenue funding appear to threaten and undermine the benefits of capital investment in flood defences, but I firmly believe, as the Committee does, that we should not rely completely on Government sources, but should look at partnership approaches such as the Pickering “Slowing the flow” scheme in my constituency as well as measures by insurance companies.
Sir Tony Baldry
That is exactly the point that I wanted to make. We cannot necessarily expect the Environment Agency to fund the totality of flood defences. In Banbury, recently completed flood defences cost £17 million: £9 million came from the Environment Agency, but £8 million came from others, including the district council, Network Rail, Thames Water and local landowners. Many people have a role to play in contributing to making sure that flood defences work, not just the Environment Agency.
Miss McIntosh
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I do not wish to detain the House too long, but I shall come on to look at that. The Government and the Minister have an opportunity to elaborate on this, but the House must be persuaded of the contribution that private bodies can make. The Select Committee has not been persuaded of that. Personally, I think that there are huge opportunities for water companies, but we need to amend the 2014 pricing review to allow that, so it would be useful to have an update. In addition, I should like to know whether the Minister believes that insurance companies will step up to the plate regarding infrastructure spending.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Although I understand entirely the argument about multiple sources of funding for many flood defences, some major defences—most obviously, in my case, and in the case of my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), the Humber defences—are strategic and, by definition, have to be carried out by a major strategic authority. Under those circumstances, the 1:8 rule and the requirement for other funding do not work. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) accept that strategic intervention should take place on a different scale?
Miss McIntosh
My right hon. Friend brings me to the core of my opening remarks.
We could argue the whole afternoon about how much each side has paid in capital funding over the past two strategic reviews. That argument over capital expenditure is worth having, to the extent that that expenditure has increased, but the Committee on Climate Change—I am sure that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) will rehearse this—concluded that we have to spend some £20 million a year extra. The kernel of the argument is how we define revenue and how we define maintenance expenditure. We do not completely understand where the money is being spent.
Miss McIntosh
If I could make a little progress first, I will then take interventions.
There are a number of maintenance activities which the Environment Agency groups into four main areas. The first is operations: inspecting assets, providing utilities, and operating flood barriers and pumping stations. Some of those have passed from internal drainage boards to the Environment Agency, and have not been maintained since 2004-05. It is important to put that on the record.
The second maintenance activity is conveyance. The Committee was shocked to learn that only £30 million is spent each year in the whole of England and Wales on controlling aquatic weed, dredging, clearing screens and removing obstructions from rivers. We will never know whether regular maintenance and dredging on the Somerset levels by the IDBs or the Environment Agency would have prevented the traumatic flooding we have seen since last autumn and right through the winter.
The third activity is maintaining flood defences and structures, including carrying out inspections and minor repairs, managing grass, trees and bushes and controlling the populations of burrowing animals on flood embankments. My argument is that under the previous Government much of the regular maintenance work was simply not done by the Environment Agency because its political masters, the Government, said not to do it because of birds nesting. I argue that IDBs work with nature and dredge only at the right times of year.
The fourth activity is mechanical, electrical, instrumentation, control and automation—MEICA—meaning carrying out minor repairs to, and replacement of, pumps and tidal barriers.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that many places, including Wokingham, experienced flooding because essential maintenance work on ditches, culverts, drains and small rivers, which are relatively low-budget items, had not been undertaken by the Environment Agency? In the previous year the Environment Agency spent £1.2 billion overall and massively increased its staff, but it did not have a penny to protect the people of Wokingham from the floods that have now hit them. Is it not a question of how we spend the Environment Agency’s budget?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
First, is the hon. Lady or her Committee satisfied with the responses of the various agencies in dealing with flooding? Secondly, is she happy with the level of staff employed by the Environment Agency?
Miss McIntosh
I think there is a coherent view across the House this afternoon that when IDBs, district councils and the flood levy from the regional flood committee contribute to the Environment Agency, it is not always clear what work is done. That is something we are here to debate this afternoon.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The hon. Lady said that we will never know what the result of dredging in Somerset would have been. I suspect that we would still have had flooding, but it would have started later, could have been removed quicker and would have been far less extensive. Does she agree that the initial ask we are making of the Environment Agency and the Government—the 8 km of dredging, which is the most crucial dredge—now needs to be under way? The maintenance dredging every year by local authorities and IDBs should not be confined to that area, but should look at other potential problem areas, such as the Great Bow bridge in Langport, and connecting Monks Leaze Clyse through to the River Sowy and the King’s Sedgemoor drain.
Miss McIntosh
I do not have my hon. Friend’s depth of knowledge, so I shall simply refer to Lord Smith’s evidence to our Committee. Page 16 states:
“Lord Smith stated that asset management spend would equate to £169 million in 2012-13, reducing to £146 million in 2013-14 and £136 million in 2014-15. He noted that there were some ‘pinch points’ in specific places such as on the Parrett and Tone rivers. He further noted that no additional revenue or operating funding was being provided to match the new £120 million capital funding announced in the Autumn Statement.”
I refer to the Committee’s conclusion, which my hon. Friend will be aware of, that there should have been some regular maintenance of the Parrett and the Tone well in advance of the floods last autumn.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I cannot speak to the situation in Somerset, but I hope that the hon. Lady would not advocate dredging in every situation. In the early 1990s and early 2000s, the local authority in my constituency sped up water flows higher up the valley, which led to a significant problem further down the valley. Surely we need a whole-valley answer.
Miss McIntosh
The hon. Gentleman will have listened carefully to the four headings that I set out—the different types of maintenance, of which dredging is a small part.
I turn to the flood defence maintenance funding for the coming financial years. It is with some sorrow that I see the reduction in the headline figures for flood defence maintenance, from £172 million in the financial year 2010-11 to £147 million for 2013-14. I hope that in discussing the supplementary budget, the debate will achieve one thing: an increase in maintenance from revenue funding and a more general grasp of the importance of maintenance in all its forms to preventing flooding in future. The Environment Agency’s £147 million maintenance funding for 2013-14 is allocated as follows, in accordance with the four maintenance categories that I rehearsed earlier. I repeat that there is only £30 million this year for clearing watercourses, normally referred to as dredging, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. For operation there is £44 million, for structures there is £52 million and for mechanical electrical instrumentation control and automation there is £21 million.
The role of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in climate change is narrow; it is about adaptation and seeking to increase resilience. However, it would help to allow the conveyance of water, to slow the flow with land management schemes upstream—dredging, desilting and other means—and to stop fast-growing willow coppice from blocking watercourses in order to allow the water to flow away in Somerset, Yorkshire and other areas across the country, to prevent flooding.
My Committee and I absolutely accept that there is no one-stop option that will prevent all forms of flooding; maintenance, as well as land management upstream schemes, has to be considered.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that there is incoherence at the heart of the Government’s policy on climate change and flooding? The Prime Minister said that money was no object when it came to the relief effort to clear up after floods, but less than two weeks later he was handing huge new subsidies to the fossil fuel industry; when those fossil fuels are burned, extreme weather events, including flooding, are made more likely. Does she agree with the commentator who said today that that is like promising to rebuild Dresden while ordering more bombers to flatten it again?
Miss McIntosh
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to say that I believe that there is an incoherence in policy. We import woodchip at huge expense from the United States and other parts of the country to co-fire coal at Drax power station in Selby; I should be encouraging farmers in north Yorkshire and all around the country to grow fast-growing willow coppice trees to co-fire that power station. There are inconsistencies and incoherence in our renewals policy and we should visit those as part of our flood prevention scheme.
We have seen just about every type of flooding possible since autumn last year—coastal flooding, tidal surges, river flooding and overtopping, surface water flooding and, most recently, groundwater flooding. We know that all this has been the worst flooding incident in this country in 250 years, since 1766. This debate is the opportunity for the Department to share how the Government seek to adapt to more extreme weather events and how we are becoming more resilient and building more appropriately. Given what was asked at Communities and Local Government questions earlier, I am not sure that the House is entirely convinced that we are yet building in the most appropriate places—that is, not in areas that have something to do with flooding in their name or that act as functional floodplains.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
In 2007, 55,000 houses were flooded in this country. My understanding is that this winter about 7,000 houses were flooded. That is a personal tragedy for every single one of those 7,000, but I am not sure how my hon. Friend can claim that last winter’s flooding was the worst for 250 years. We had the worst rainfall for 250 years, but in the context of 2007, the flooding was nowhere near that scale.
Miss McIntosh
It was the worst weather event that we have had. My hon. Friend’s intervention raises the very interesting question of why the Bellwin formula was not raised for the roads, bridges and houses that were damaged in 2012-13. He is right about the number of houses flooded. I think that more houses were flooded in the whole of the Yorkshire region in 2012-13 than were flooded in total this year. I supported the bid by North Yorkshire county council to increase the Bellwin limit and I will come on to that in a moment.
My hon. Friend also raises the very interesting question—this supports my argument—of where the funding will come from. I absolutely agree that most of the flood defences held and that many more houses would have flooded than was the case. The House should celebrate that, but where will the money come from to repair those flood defences that held this time but that will have been damaged by the sustained bashing from the storm?
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that in Norfolk the vicious tidal surge of 5 and 6 December reached record levels along parts of the coast and in King’s Lynn in particular. Is she aware that the tidal defences held up remarkably well? There have been some breaches, which the Environment Agency repaired very quickly. Does my hon. Friend agree that managed retreat anywhere along the Norfolk coast would not be an acceptable policy under any circumstances?
Miss McIntosh
I will come on to the role that farmers can play. Ever since I was the MEP for the whole of the Essex coast for five years, I have not been a big fan of managed retreat and have never been persuaded that it is a good thing.
We should recognise the money that the Government have very generously provided. I believe it is £2 million for tourism and £10 million for farms, but it would seem that we need an extra £20 million year-on-year increase in flood management capital funding over the next 25 years to keep pace with the increasing flood threat. I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s response as to the Government’s view on why that might not happen.
Another great development would be more flexibility to transfer money between capital maintenance expenditure and activities. I also urge my hon. Friend the Minister to grab this opportunity to review either the Treasury Green Book or the Environment Agency’s point-scoring system. We heard evidence that the cost-benefit ratio for household protection schemes is 5:1, but that for all other assets it is 18:1. This is, therefore, a good opportunity to address that. During Prime Minister’s questions some two or three weeks ago, the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that all flood funding was up for review. Did he mean a review of the scoring system, which is long overdue? Although it was visited in a modest way in 2010, I believe it should be reviewed from top to bottom.
We concluded that the current model for allocating flood defence funding to protecting property is biased towards urban rather than rural areas. In fact, our report argues that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to protect rural areas and that there is a risk to food security as more land becomes at risk of flooding.
I attended the National Farmers Union farming conference last week. The NFU states that 58% of the most productive land—that is, grade 1, farmed English land—is within a floodplain. Our report states that 14% of agricultural land in England and Wales is at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. A drop in our food self-sufficiency raises a long-term question over ongoing food security.
Mr Heath
I am very pleased that the hon. Lady is making a point about the difference between rural and urban areas. There is a further complication when it comes to Somerset, in that people assume that it is a traditional floodplain, but it is not: it is reclaimed, inland sea. It is the great mere of Somerset. Therefore, all of the equations that would work elsewhere do not work when every single drop of water has to be pumped up and over to a river that is higher than the surrounding land.
Miss McIntosh
My hon. Friend makes his local case very powerfully, and I commend him for doing so.
How points are scored needs to be revisited. It is important to give a higher value for the benefits of agricultural land and of the protection of land to secure future food production. The big question is about ensuring that reduced regulation on farmers and landowners can allow them to remove vegetation from river banks. Now that we have had six months of the seven pilot schemes for the vegetation removal process, I would go so far as to urge the Minister to end the pilots and to roll out the process across the country, so allowing farmers to remove vegetation from their river banks.
I want to say a word about the role of internal drainage boards.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the hon. Lady moves on to the subject of drainage boards, may I gently say—I am listening to her speech with close attention, as I invariably do—that I am cautiously optimistic that she is approaching her concluding remarks? I say that not because of any lack of attention or interest on my part, but because several other Members wish to contribute to the debate, and I know that she will be as eager as I am to hear their contributions.
Miss McIntosh
Indeed. That is the purpose of the debate, Mr Speaker.
I am vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. The Select Committee concluded that drainage boards are best placed to remove the vegetation and to carry out the maintenance that has been mentioned. Indeed, we are grateful that the Government have looked favourably on this opportunity to allow IDBs to use their local knowledge and resources, and to undertake more of the investment. We believe that there is a lost opportunity in relation to funding from private bodies that DEFRA—
Miss McIntosh
I will stick to Mr Speaker’s strictures about reaching my conclusion sooner rather than later.
There is an opportunity to lever in more than 15% of contributions from other sources. Will the Minister tell us how the Government intend to do that? Do they intend to use common agricultural policy funds to encourage farmers to undertake flood prevention measures by rewarding them through EU agri-environment schemes or by paying proper compensation for flood storage, flood alleviation and other such schemes? Innovative funding should stretch to allowing water companies to invest through the price review, as I have said. I am a big fan of SUDS, and I believe that sustainable drains should be introduced by the autumn at the absolute latest. Most of Sir Michael Pitt’s recommendations have been adopted, but not, I note, those on ending the automatic right to connect and about sustainable drains.
I want to place on the record our commendation of the volunteers, flood wardens, police, fire, ambulance and Environment Agency staff and all those who responded to the floods.
There is scope for the Bellwin formula to be overhauled and reviewed radically. I have mentioned how the Yorkshire and the Humber region, particularly North Yorkshire, has not benefited from the formula. We recommend that the Bellwin scheme be amended to enable local authorities to secure central Government assistance to repair and reinstate roads and other infrastructure damaged by flooding. We also recommend a review of local authorities having to incur costs of at least 0.2% of its annual revenue budget to qualify for Bellwin funding to make it fairer by measuring the impact on the local community. I add that there should be a review of the cap on spending, which I understand hampers the ability of district and county councils to raise any further contributions towards a local levy.
Finally, we were told by the Association of British Insurers that this was a one-in-250-years event. It said that the cost to date has been £426 million, of which £14 million has already been spent. We welcome Flood Re, but there are too many unknowns. We need to know more about the cross-subsidy, what the final figure will be and—I repeat—from which budget the funds will come and what progress has been made on state aid should the Government act as an insurer of last resort for a similar one-in-250-years weather event. It is obviously extremely important that the military played a role in the recovery stage during the recent floods. However, the Government are silent over which budget is covering that military activity. It would be extremely helpful for the House to know that.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Last month in Brighton and Hove, local emergency services, utilities, the city council and other stakeholders worked together with admirable determination to help the residents who were at significant risk of groundwater and surface water flooding.
It has become clear that the overall pot of money for which local authorities have to bid for flood protection projects is far from adequate. It would help if the process for applying for funds were simplified. I would like to know whether Ministers are considering improvements in that area. This winter’s events have also shown that we need long-term policies and investment to address all types of flooding, including not only coastal and river flooding, but groundwater and surface water flooding.
Despite the limited increase in investment in flood defences, funding from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will still be about £1.4 billion behind what the Environment Agency says it will need between 2015 and 2021 just to stop the flood risk getting even worse. It is clear that, as well as reversing the cuts to the Environment Agency budget and investing properly in flood defences, we must factor in climate change projections on the future cost of extreme weather. As the current approach ignores that, the Committee on Climate Change warned recently that the spending plans would result in about 250,000 more households becoming exposed to a significant risk of flooding by 2035.
Many hon. Members have raised the cost-benefit ratio rule. Currently, projects have to deliver an 8:1 return on investment. Why is that the case, when HS2 must deliver only a 2:1 return? Decent investment would reduce the average rate of return, but it would also reduce the overall amount of flood damage. Will the Government review that rule to help local authorities invest in the flood protection that they know is required?
At the very least, we need a commitment that spending on flood protection will be increased in line with the expert recommendations of the Environment Agency and the Committee on Climate Change. In considering how to fund that, a good place to start would be to redirect just some of the billions of pounds of subsidies and tax breaks that go the fossil fuel industry.
Last week, I received a report from the Sussex Wildlife Trust that sets out an evidence-based approach to flood protection that was produced by the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, which is made up of independent and professional people who are experts in their field. The report reinforces a key lesson that we need to learn from the recent floods: not only that our spending on flood protection is shockingly inadequate and that we must not have Ministers who deny the link between the burning of fossil fuels, man-made climate change, extreme weather and enormous threats to our society—threats that the Government are exacerbating through their inequitable and unscientific climate targets and their obsession with helping big energy companies to extract every last drop of oil and gas that is out there—but, crucially, that there must be a fundamental shift towards seeking to work with nature, rather than against it. Not only would such an approach benefit wildlife and nature, but it is the best way to reduce our vulnerability to flooding and extreme weather events and to increase our resilience.
Mr Redwood
On that point, is the hon. Lady a supporter of the Environment Agency’s policy in the Somerset levels over recent years of not dredging on the grounds that it might damage habitats?
Caroline Lucas
Dredging is often pulled out of the hat as if it were a silver bullet. Dredging can have a positive effect if it is done in certain places at certain times. In other places, it does not have a positive effect. In the Somerset levels, it could have been done a little earlier, but it certainly would not have massively reduced what we are seeing now. We need a much more holistic response, which is what Sussex Wildlife Trust is talking about.
Mr Bellingham
Is the hon. Lady aware that the defences around the Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire fens are comprehensive and holistic in that they involve not only tidal barrages, but pumping stations, relief channels and dredging? That combined approach protects a vast amount of Britain’s farmland.
Caroline Lucas
I am very pleased to hear that, but the comprehensive approach that I am talking about must involve a much wider evaluation of how we use land. For example, we must consider what use farm subsidies are being put to and whether they are inadvertently encouraging unhelpful ways of using land. I am referring to something rather larger than the holistic approach the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
First, we know that allowing development on floodplains puts more people at risk. Secondly, we know that compacted soil and damaged uplands channel water downstream faster. Thirdly, we know that climate change is making extreme rainfall events more frequent and intense. I will outline briefly the solutions we need in each of those areas—solutions that work with nature, rather than against it.
The Government’s ongoing attacks on the planning system are a real problem. Sensible, long-term development control in the public interest is being sacrificed at the altar of mindless, short-term GDP growth at any cost. Development on floodplains and in areas of high flood risk, not just now but for the lifetime of a housing development, needs a stronger, more accountable planning system. We must ditch the current approach that casts sensible planning rules and regulations as a barrier to growth and planners, according to the Prime Minister, as enemies of enterprise.
Crucially, we know that not all decisions about development on floodplains are taken by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government can use his power to call in or recover a planning application. So why is it so difficult to obtain basic information about this from his Department? A written question that I tabled back on 5 February remains unanswered. I hope that the message will reach the Secretary of State and that he will tell us today how many times he has exercised his power to call in a planning application to approve or reject housing or commercial development on a floodplain or in an area of flood risk.
It is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State to point the finger at local councils, nor is it good enough for him to say that 99% of proposed new residential units that the Environment Agency objected to on floodplain grounds were decided in line with Environment Agency advice when the decisions are known. What about all the others? Why will the Government not give us the full picture? The fact that my question remains unanswered a whole month later raises suspicions about whether the Secretary of State has been overruling local authorities or Environment Agency advice and allowing development to proceed in areas at risk of flooding. I hope that that is not the case, but we need to see the statistics and we need to see them now.
A month ago, I also tabled a written question on the impact of recent and future flooding on small businesses.
Andrew Percy
On building on floodplains, the view from Brighton might be quite different from that in my part of Yorkshire and Lincolnshire where such building is almost unavoidable because the land is drained marshland surrounded by rivers that drain 20% of the UK’s water. We have a desperate need of affordable housing to help local people who want to live locally. The matter is not as simple as just stopping all building on floodplains, which would price more of my constituents out of the housing market.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. His point is reasonable, but in areas that he describes—they are not typical but they certainly exist and he has intimate knowledge of them—the architecture could be different with houses on stilts and resilience in the building process. That is not happening right now, which is why we are seeing so much flooding causing so much misery for so many people throughout the country.
Caroline Lucas
I want to make a little more progress.
Turning to land management of uplands particularly, we need a radical rethink to take proper account of climate change and to reduce the threat to people’s homes and livelihoods, and to food security. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently confirmed that the rules farmers must meet to obtain public subsidies do not cover flood risk. In some cases, the conditions on farm payments may be making the situation worse through over-grazing and removal of vegetation. We must look seriously at whether that is good use of public money, and introduce changes to ensure that such payments are conditional on flood prevention.
The Government must stop their irresponsible use of public money by ensuring that flood prevention is a non-negotiable condition of all farm subsidies. Farmers and land managers know what the slow water solutions are.
Caroline Lucas
I have given way a lot, and I fear that Mr Speaker will tell me to wind up.
We need better soil management as well as better water management, not least because that reduces the silting up of river beds further downstream. Approaches that help more water to remain in the uplands, where there may be peat bogs, rather than going downstream into people’s living rooms, can seriously improve water quality and have the potential to cut water bills for households.
Finally, on climate change, I regret that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is not here because his comments during the debate last week were complacent at best and reckless at worst. If he were here, he could clear up the basic matter of what he thinks is man-made and what is natural when it comes to the increased risk of extreme weather. In the same breath as he mentioned the Met Office, he said that there “might” be either short-term or long-term trends. On what basis does he query the long-term trend, let alone its seriousness? The Met Office states:
“There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.”
If the Secretary of State has the evidence, let us see it. The only supposed authority he offered in support of his views is Lord Lawson—not a scientist of any sort but a staunch defender of the fossil fuel industry and head of a campaign group that lobbies against the Government’s climate change policies.
When talking about what he knows about climate science, why does the Secretary of State choose not to quote a climate scientist? When he has read Hansard later, perhaps he will confirm whether he has read the recent joint report by the leading UK and US scientific institutions—the Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences—which finds that man-made climate change is more certain than ever and will post severe threats to society and infrastructure. Will he agree to meet Sir Paul Nurse and the authors of the report to ensure that his approach to defending the realm takes account of the realities and the risks of climate change?
I accept that the Secretary of State said last week that
“the risk is there to our nation”.—[Official Report, 26 February 2014; Vol. 576, c. 335.]
Let us therefore keep to the theory of risk rather than uncertainty, which, as we all know, is a well-known tactic of obfuscation and delaying action used by those with vested interests, from the tobacco to the fossil fuel lobbies. If we talk about this in terms of risk rather than uncertainty, it is like thinking about what is more important, risk or certainty, when we decide whether to get on a plane, vaccinate our children, or insure our homes and valuable belongings, or even whether to cross a busy road. Does a rational and responsible parent say, “I’m not 100% sure that my child will definitely get a really serious disease, so I’m not going to vaccinate them”? If one has just bought a new house, is the sensible approach to say, “I’m not 100% certain that my house will burn down, so I’m not going to bother with home insurance”? No. Unless we have a science and risk-based approach to protecting UK homes and businesses from future flood risk and extreme weather, the Secretary of State will be failing in his aim to ensure that our citizens are safe.
I also object to the Secretary of State’s view that the climate debate is polarised, as he claimed, between sceptics and zealots. Organisations such as the World Bank, the International Energy Agency, insurance industry bodies, the World Economic Forum and PwC have clearly paid a lot more attention to the science than he has. These organisations, which are not in any way environmentalist, are all warning that if we continue with business as usual and fail to make radical cuts to emissions, we are on course to seeing 4°, if not 6°, of climate change within our children’s lifetimes.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I think the hon. Lady takes issue with the Secretary of State on the wrong point. There is a danger of hectoring. Given such overwhelming scientific evidence, it should be a straightforward matter to bring people on board in seeing that there is a risk that needs to be managed, but the debate has somehow become partisan and divided. Perhaps she, and all of us, could think about how we get our language right so that we create an inclusive approach, and then we can argue about the best response, not divide on the basis of belief.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that the Secretary of State is one of the first people who ought to be trying to generate that inclusive approach to climate change. Instead, he has been doing exactly the opposite in referring to people as zealots and saying that those who promote a risk-based approach to climate change are completely off the agenda. I entirely agree that we could look at our language, but let us take the fight to where it starts, which is with the Secretary of State’s response to the flooding debate last week.
I can tell, Mr Speaker, that you would like me to conclude very shortly, so I shall be brief. I find it extraordinary that although this debate is about something we can agree on—we all want to reduce the impacts of flooding on the communities we represent—many of us are not prepared to look at the likely causes of extreme weather events of the kind that we have been seeing in recent weeks. If I sound frustrated, that is where my level of frustration is coming from. As the Secretary of State spoke only of adapting to climate change rather than turning off the fossil fuel tap to prevent more climate change from reaching dangerous levels in the first place, perhaps he would like to explain to the House what 6° of climate change might look like, or even what 4° of climate change would mean for the UK, and exactly how he would adapt to those changes. So far we have seen only 0.8° of climate change, but perhaps some people in Somerset, let alone communities elsewhere in the world, might argue that the situation is already dangerous.
If this Government want credibility as regards protecting the UK from the increased risk of flooding and other climate risks, we need radical action to cut emissions in line with both science and equity. That means leaving about 80% of known fossil fuels in the ground, not handing out tax breaks to companies to find and exploit yet more reserves of oil and gas that we cannot afford to burn. It means not just accepting but strengthening the fourth carbon budget in line with the science, to secure the economic and employment benefits of leading the transition to a zero-carbon economy. It means leadership to ensure that action on climate change is not just an issue for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, but a top priority for all the Government.
The flooding has led to many words being spoken in the House about resilience, and the importance of taking the right long-term decisions for our future and that of our children, but action, not just words on climate change, is the litmus test of whether or not they are meaningful.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have not imposed a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, but it might benefit the House to know that there are still 12 right hon. and hon. Members seeking to catch my eye. If Members think in terms of speaking for 10 minutes each, or preferably a little less, it should be possible readily to accommodate all who wish to contribute. The Chair will call the Front- Bench speakers to wind up the debate at approximately 6.30 pm.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am delighted to catch your eye in this important debate, Mr Speaker, and I will certainly adhere to your strictures. I am grateful for the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and I congratulate her on chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and on her clear knowledge of this subject in her speech.
I want to cover succinctly aspects of the performance of the Environment Agency’s and the statutory water undertaker in my constituency, Thames Water. I will then consider some of the problems with the planning system, in particular building on a floodplain and the unknown and uncertain liabilities that has caused, and the difficulties with drainage and with insuring some of those houses under the new Government Flood Re system.
In common with a number of my hon. Friends, a number of houses in my constituency—often the same houses in the same streets—have been flooding for a number of years. This is not just water flooding; it is also sewage flooding. Water flooding is bad enough, but if a house is flooded from a sewer, it is twice as bad because it takes even longer to clear up. I want to examine critically the performance of Thames Water’s underinvestment in the sewerage system in my constituency. Areas of my constituency that are affected cover Moreton-in-Marsh, Fairford, Lechlade, Cirencester, Siddington and South Cerney, to name but a few.
I hold regular half-yearly public flooding meetings in my constituency. They are recorded, with action points, and bring together all the agencies—Thames Water, the Environment Agency, the county district council and relevant town and parish councils. In that way, I can hold officials to account.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about bringing together the community around flood issues, but one point about resilience, particularly in my constituency, has been the work of the Halesowen flood committee led by Claude Mosseri and his wife Ruth. They have brought together the relevant agencies to do vital work around the Illey brook area of Halesowen. Resilience is very much about local communities taking local action to bring the agencies together.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Before I held the public meetings I found that each agency was shuffling responsibility off to one of the other agencies. It is essential that all agencies and all tools in the box are unleashed to try to solve these flooding problems.
The meetings have produced results in parts of my constituency, but there is still a lot to be done. In particular, problems with sewage flooding arise because the sewerage systems are very old. The moment we have any sort of flooding the water table rises, water gets into the sewerage system, and the pumps are incapable of removing the sewage from people’s houses, leading to very difficult issues. I will be encouraging Ofwat to take a greater interest in this subject—indeed, I will invite it to my public meetings—to see whether we can encourage Thames Water to carry out what it says it will, and invest more in our sewers.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
One problem seems to be that there is no way we can control the water table from going up and down. That is a severe problem, and there does not seem to be a technical solution to sorting it out. That is happening in my constituency more and more.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I agree with my hon. Friend that whether or not climate change is taking place and is caused by human activity, there is no doubt that we are getting an increased number of events with increased rain intensity, and we must therefore have better defences against flooding. There is no reason in the 21st-century why we cannot have sewerage systems that cope with such events. In particular, as I shall come on to say, we need sewerage systems that will cope with new development, which often adds to existing problems.
There is a perception that the residents of the Cotswolds, who live 100 miles away from London but who are still in the Thames Water area, are getting a very poor deal. It is outrageous that all Thames Water customers will be charged an additional £70 to £80 a year for at least 10 years to pay for the huge Thames tideway tunnel, when we in the Cotswolds cannot get the increased investment we need to deal with sewage flooding. The regulator Ofwat has to look at that. The time for talking in the Cotswolds is over. Thames Water has had more than enough time to carry out all its design work. We need more sewerage investment.
Equally, we need the Environment Agency to take the lead in planning how to deal with catchment areas. An exchange took place with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The answer is not just dredging, but considering the whole catchment area using all the keys in our locker to deal with the problem. That is what I am asking the EA to do in my constituency. For at least three years, it has been talking about coming up with an upper River Churn catchment area plan, but I have still yet to see that plan. Not only do we need to see adequate investment from the EA to deal with river flooding problems, we need to encourage Thames Water to invest adequately to tackle sewerage problems.
On new developments, we have, unfortunately, seen a rash of developers in my constituency. I accept that we all need new houses because the population is rising, but we need—I say this most emphatically to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench—new houses in the right areas. If we build houses on floodplains we cannot complain when we get subsequent problems. In South Cerney, for example, a recently passed new development is right next door to an estate that has had sewerage flooding problems. How daft is that? Fairford and Lechlade have each seen new developments passed for developments to be built on the floodplain. That is also daft.
We need to examine the system we have at the moment. The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee for large investment, but it has to take into account only one-in-100-year events when considering whether a development on a floodplain is viable. That is completely unrealistic and should rapidly be brought down to a design phase of one-in-25-year events. The statutory water undertaker, Thames Water, is not even a statutory consultee; it is consulted by the local planning authority often only as a matter of principle. Even then, all it has to do is to say that the sewerage system is capable of being connected to the new development, not whether the new development will make existing sewage flooding worse or whether the sewer needs upgrading. This is a legal grey area. Thames Water has been taken to court several times for trying to exceed its powers. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister: for goodness’ sake let us look at this and try to get the legal framework correct.
An even more important aspect of the planning system is drainage: sustainable drainage systems. We are building up for ourselves a huge and unknown liability from the lack of proper design of drainage systems. Currently, the local planning authority monitors the drainage system for a new development. Developers, with plenty of funds behind them, employ clever drainage engineers who take their percolation tests in the summer when everything is nice and dry—when, of course, the drainage works properly—instead of being made to take them in the winter when the water table is high. They then ask the developer for a section 106 payment. Often, that payment is inadequate. Under the Water Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton knows, SUDS will have to be licensed by the county council. Until that happens, we have a huge and unknown liability from SUDS, which are often completely inadequate and designed for one-in-100-year events. I say again that they should be designed for one-in-25-year events. We should not be building willy-nilly on the floodplain without thinking seriously about what we are doing.
A lot of my constituents have difficulty getting insurance. The new Government Flood Re system will not cover houses built after 2009, so, in relation to all recent applications where houses have been built on the floodplain, we are creating a problem for ourselves. They will undoubtedly flood at some stage, yet the owners of those houses will not be able to get flood insurance.
I welcome the Government’s efforts to ensure that everyone who buys a house on a floodplain is aware of having done so, but it is one thing for people to be aware of it during the sunny summer months when they buy their houses, and a completely different thing for them to be aware of it in the winter, when the rain falls in bucketfuls.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, mine has been pretty much under water. Does he agree that if we go ahead with many of the proposed flood alleviation schemes—the bigger schemes that are intended for the future, such as the extension of the Jubilee river all the way down to the Thames—far more land will come back into use, and we shall need better planning control to ensure that the flood meadows are not removed from the current system?
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend is entirely right. If we concrete over vast areas, particularly on the floodplains, they will no longer be able to absorb water, which is what they were designed to do in the first place. In many instances, they were designed specifically as flood meadows. Worse still, in the event of heavy rainfall they will empty the water into the catchment very quickly. That is what has caused flooding downstream.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that we should consider the catchment areas as a whole, and decide how best to deal with what are to remain floodplains. In my constituency there is a scheme enabling water above Cirencester to be impounded so that it can be gently released when the rainfall has subsided. We should be doing much more of that sort of thing, because it is much cheaper than building expensive houses and then having to provide flood defences retrospectively.
Let me say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, while I commend what the Government have done, we need to look carefully at investment, particularly investment by the water undertakers. It is not a question of public funding; it is simply a question of equity between the profits that are given to shareholders and the profits that are reinvested in sewerage systems. I repeat that it is outrageous that Thames Water is being allowed to charge my constituents between £70 and £80 a year for the Thames tideway tunnel when they are not benefiting from the investment in sewerage flooding systems that they justly deserve.
Let us, for goodness’ sake, look at the planning system. Let us not keep building on the floodplains, because doing so is creating a great many uncertain liabilities for the future.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Three months ago, the storm surge hit the east coast and caused considerable damage in a number of coastal communities including Lowestoft, in my constituency. Before Christmas I secured an Adjournment debate in which I highlighted the items of immediate concern. Today it is appropriate to review the situation, and to highlight what went well and the instances in which we can and must do better.
In Lowestoft, a small geographical area was hit very hard. The community rallied round and the area is gradually returning to normal, but many people will not be back in their homes for a number of weeks, and for some life will never be the same. The repairs to the sea defences have still not been completed, and it is a race against time to get the beaches open for the important tourism season. We need to learn lessons from the night of 5 December and consider how we can best manage flood risk, making the best possible use of the available resources, which will be limited. We must recognise that events such as those that we have witnessed, either directly or on television, will become more frequent.
There are three instances in which I believe that we should be doing things differently. First, we need a new framework for the management of flood risk from rivers. The Government’s management of flood risk must be simplified and streamlined. There is too much duplication of effort and inefficient use of resources, with funding shared between five levels of government. We need better co-ordination and simplification. All work related to flooding should ideally take place in one Department. Locally, a whole-river approach to flood management should be adopted, from source to the sea. Each catchment and each river is different, and each should be managed by local people, who invariably know best.
Since the scrapping of the National Rivers Authority in 1994, a more fragmented approach has been adopted, and we now need greater certainty and local flexibility. It is also important not to become fixated on specific ways of managing flood risk: it must be recognised that different solutions will be appropriate in different settings and on different rivers. I make this comment with specific regard to the issue of dredging. In some places it will solve a problem by creating additional capacity for holding water, while in others it may exacerbate a problem. In managing a river, it is important to use all the tools in the box, whether dredging, desilting, repairing of banks, the managing of vegetation downstream, slowing the flow, storing water or improving infiltration upstream.
There is a need for better and more regular ongoing maintenance with investment in pumps and drainage infrastructure. More licences should be granted to farmers to undertake regular minor work such as clearing blockages, desilting and vegetation maintenance, and I draw attention to my farming interests as detailed in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Homeowners and businesses should also be armed with the tools and the information needed to defend their properties. There is a need to build resilience into the defence of individual properties. The £5,000 repair and renew grant for affected homes and businesses can play a very important role in achieving this, whether through the fitting of flood boards, covers to air bricks and the insulation of valves to prevent the backflow of sewage.
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
I held a public meeting last week on flooding issues in my constituency and those who are flooded welcomed this £5,000 repair and renew grant, but some who have not experienced internal flooding were concerned that they may do so in future. Does my hon. Friend share my view that the Government should consider introducing a scheme whereby they provide part-funding for those who want to make their homes resilient or have some kind of tax credit for that purpose?
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend raises a good point. The £5,000 grant is a good way for individuals to make their properties more resilient. In Bevan street east in Lowestoft the property with flood boards was the one that had very minimal flood damage. We should be building on this scheme where the flooding happened this time and also look at other areas that are vulnerable.
It is also important that local communities that have been affected by the floods are fully informed and advised as to what they should do. It is important to plan and rehearse flood plans so as to eliminate the need for frantic and ultimately useless activity once a flood has occurred.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about what householders can do to protect their own property. The Pitt report after the 2007 floods recommended that in flood risk areas insurance notices should include information on flood risk and the simple steps that can be taken to mitigate the effects. Does he agree that that would be a very good thing?
Peter Aldous
I agree entirely. One thing the Government need to be doing is making sure advice is provided through the local authorities on this £5,000. Support and advice must be given to local communities, in particular in streets where this problem is occurring, to enable them to put in place sound and practical arrangements as soon as possible.
Mr Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important that the £5,000 is made available in the most sensible manner possible, so that those who have been repeatedly flooded over a number of years are eligible, rather than just those who have had a one-off event, however severe, which is unlikely to repeated for a long time to come?
Peter Aldous
The £5,000 grant has clearly hit the right note across the country, and it is no doubt right that the Government should review very carefully where it is provided.
In my constituency, the preparatory and warning work leading up to the storm surge generally went well. There is scope for improvement in handling the mop-up afterwards, however, and I know the councils are looking at doing that. It is also important to support those who are facing change and uncertainty, even if that is in the long term. Long-term expensive works are required to defend the communities of Corton and Kessingland in my constituency. It is necessary to work with those communities to involve them in finding a permanent solution, even if it is going to be very expensive and some way hence, so that they have confidence that in the long term such solutions will be in place, rather than leaving them feeling marooned and isolated, as they perhaps do at the moment.
Secondly, I am concerned that the existing mechanism for accessing new flood defence schemes is deficient, in that it does not give sufficient weight to economic considerations. It is important that when the Government are determining whether to provide financial support for flood defence schemes, proper account is taken of the economic benefits of the proposals. The benefit-to-cost rules that are currently applied do not do that. In the 2008 Pitt review the recognition of the need to protect the economy is too limited, and there are similar concerns about the flood and coastal erosion risk management plan introduced in 2011.
In my constituency, the future economic viability and vitality of Lowestoft are highly dependent on investment being made by energy companies in the port area, the very area where much of the flooding occurred on 5 December. In order to attract that investment, which would regenerate the area, bringing new business and new jobs to the town, it is important that robust and comprehensive coastal and flood defence arrangements are in place. Proposals to achieve that will be submitted to the Department shortly, and I shall be lobbying vigorously for the necessary funding.
Finally, there is a need for a new approach to coastal erosion and protection, and for a longer-term plan and increased investment in sea defences. Many of the sea defences in Suffolk and Norfolk were put in place by the Eden and Macmillan Governments after the 1953 floods and are now in need of urgent repair, upgrading or replacement. Given the events of 2007 and 2013, it seems these sorts of problems are likely to become more frequent in the coming years. Sea levels on the Suffolk coast have been rising since records began in Victorian times, and since 1953 they have been rising by 2.4 mm per annum. When the impact of climate change is added, it is clear that there is a need for urgent action. In Lowestoft, Halcrow and BAM Nuttall have made the assessment that whereas the previous estimate was that a 1953-type flood would occur every 1,000 years, it could now take place every 20 years.
The UK’s approach to coastal defences over the past 20 years should be contrasted with that of the Dutch. After the 1953 floods, they designed their sea defences to withstand a one-in-4,000-year flood, whereas ours were designed to withstand only a one-in-1,000-year flood. The Dutch have pursued a different approach: the provision of their coastal defences is fully integrated with the provision of other infrastructure, be it airports, harbours, roads, houses or factories. In the UK, coastal flood defences have tended to be an add-on and have all too frequently been cut in times of austerity. The Dutch do not rely solely on hard defences, and a system of dams, dunes and dykes has been put in place which enables them to withstand a one-in-10,000-year storm. By contrast, neither the Pitt review nor the flood and coastal erosion management plan properly addresses coastal erosion and flooding. The latter does not fully reflect the differences between inland flooding, which is temporary, and coastal flooding and erosion, which can be terminal for affected properties and assets.
The storm surges that occurred along the east coast in 1953 and 2013 were the result of a combination of events: very low atmospheric pressure over the North sea, which caused the sea level to rise dramatically; high astronomic tides; gale force winds; and rainfall. On both recent occasions, we escaped by the skin of our teeth, although I concede that what happened in 1953 was horrific; in 2007, the wind dropped in the nick of time, and in 2013 the wind was blowing in a northerly direction and there was no heavy rainfall. I fear that it will not be third time lucky, and it is important both that new defences are put in place as soon as practically possible and that we adopt a different approach to the managing of flood risk.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
May I apologise to the House for my lateness? Unfortunately, I got stuck on a train from Newcastle for reasons I do not need to detain the House with. I will take as little time as I can so as not to abuse the position that I have been given in this debate.
I thank the Minister and the whole team for all their work—I am talking about the Prime Minister all the way down through the various ministries. I also want to thank Opposition Members too. The Leader of the Opposition visited my constituency. He was extremely magnanimous with his time and he did not, dare I say it, make a spectacle of himself. Unlike many Members, I welcome ministerial visits and Ministers seeing what is happening in the area. This Minister has been to the region more than most to chair a number of meetings.
We are putting together a report that will be given to the Prime Minister and the House later in the week. As the Minister knows, we must change the whole way that we deal with this problem. Members have expressed the hope that we never experience the same thing again, but as sure as night follows day, we will and we must be aware of that. It is as certain as death and taxes. It may not be the Somerset levels that are affected, but it will be somewhere. There must be fundamental change that crosses the political divide and that is agreed on by both sides of the House.
The one hurdle that we all have to overcome is the Treasury. It will try to stop us spending the money that is required to put in defences and the works that are needed to ensure that the flooding does not happen in the future. Members from across the House must make it clear to the Chancellor that we have to be given the money that we need. We are the sixth-largest economy in the world, yet here we are, unable to raise money to defend our own people from the most basic problem faced by man—certainly in my constituency—since prehistoric times, which is water. We manage it well. When my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) was Minister he put in place a lot of changes to try to make the system work. Although I occasionally berated him in the local press, I respect him for his hard work. [Interruption.] I tried to do that without a smile and failed dismally. It is crucial that we take responsibility for the problem and say that each area will have to be defended properly.
Miss McIntosh
May I welcome my hon. Friend to the Chamber? I have a question that is vexing the House and other colleagues in Somerset. If we look at the whole management system of the Somerset levels, to what extent could the damage have been prevented if we had had both upstream flood management storage as well as regular maintenance and drainage downstream?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. She is most astute. One of the problems is that we do not have the capacity to pump into the river below a certain level. I am talking about the area on the border between my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). What happened was that the river backed up. We could not get the water around. We have two points into the sea; one is through the River Parrett and the other is through the King’s Sedgemoor drain. Both are not able to take what we need to pump into them. Nearly 60 square miles of land are underwater, which really focuses our minds on the problems faced by our constituents. Although we have not lost many properties, it has devastated the tourism industry and many other things in the local area. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) knows from his long experience of farming nearby how dangerous these areas can be.
The Minister has made it quite clear that local input is needed. The internal drainage boards and the local Environment Agency—I am not suggesting asking Lord Smith for one second, nor would I—have an enormous input to make, but that must be done in conjunction with local people. That is why the meetings that we have been holding in Sedgemoor or Somerton and Frome have been so important; we have been able to use that local input. I was rather worried when the EA sent John Varley, whom I have met a few times. I find him the most impossible man, although I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury would disagree with me. It is obvious that a lot of people have others’ best interests at heart.
We must do three things. First, we must look at the Bridgwater barrage. That will cost an enormous amount of money, but it is vital. Secondly, we must look at the pump system.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about the barrage across the River Parrett, which is absolutely essential. The £200 million cost of raising the railway across Sedgemoor starts to make the barrage look extremely cost-effective. The railway would not be flooded if that barrage were there to stop the sea going up the Parrett.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. This year, we managed to shut the main railway line and the A303, and water was lapping against parts of the M5. We really could have stopped tourism in most of the west country. I am glad that that did not happen; it is obviously good news.
Mr Heath
I have worked closely with the hon. Gentleman in this exercise. He will agree that the elements that we need from the Government are, first, the initial dredging; secondly, the commitment to build a sluice, or barrage, across the Parrett; thirdly, a funding mechanism for local IDBs or local authorities to fund the maintenance; and fourthly, the long-term management of the whole river catchment area—something that we knew back in the 1980s and ’90s, when we were working on it, but it was forgotten.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
My hon. Friend knows better than I do—he is a Somerset man; I am a usurper from Scotland—that this is an absolute tale of disgrace and woe. It is appalling, and not just one Government are involved; it goes back through many Governments, and it has been an absolute disaster. But he is right: we must sort out the pumps, the rhynes—ditches—the bunds and the dams. We must do this now. Unless this happens quickly, we will be back here, probably next year, with the Opposition asking, “What on earth did you get wrong?” It happened last year; it happened in 2000; it will happen again.
The most difficult thing that we must face is that, basically, everyone thought that Somerset was shut. We had half-term; tourism died completely. That affected the west country because everyone thought that the railway was shut and no one could get through. Therefore, we ended up costing the economy millions.
Adam Afriyie
My hon. Friend is making an impassioned speech, after a brisk rush from the train. Things are the same in my constituency; local businesses have been shut down. Some of the longer-term flood defences—the long-term plan to make our country more secure—would actually save the economy money. Perhaps not in the first five or 10 years, but over a 20-year time frame. If the Treasury put the money into schemes such as the lower Thames alleviation scheme, the money would be returned in savings from flood insurance, from businesses not closing and from savings across the economy overall.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. His area has a slightly different type of flooding. We are almost unique. We have massive amounts of land to play with. We can put in the bunds, the pumps and all the rest. Unfortunately, there are buildings right up to the Thames, so there must be a different solution, on which I am sure that my hon. Friend is already making pretty good representations to the Minister, and he will continue to do so.
My hon. Friend’s fundamental point is right: flooding has cost this country millions in the past few months. We cannot ignore that. The Treasury must say what is the cost to the sixth-largest economy in the world of what we have lost. If we can write off the whole of half-term, what will things be like at Easter? We will not have the water cleared by Easter, and the railway will not be open by then. We will still face fundamental problems in Somerset. That will knock on to Devon and certainly Cornwall. Where will we be?
We must sort this out. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor must take the brakes off. Allow us to put in our reports—on Thursday in our case, and I am sure soon after in the case of the Thames and many other rivers. The Vale of York needs to be looked after. If we do not get it right, we will be sitting here again discussing the same thing, and that is not acceptable.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I start by referring hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and by apologising to the House for legging it earlier. I had to host a long-standing event on the Terrace for land-based colleges, and I thought I should stick to that diary entry.
I remind the House that 55,000 properties were flooded in this country in 2007, and 2,500 of them were in my constituency. That was a devastating experience. One house being flooded is devastating for the individual householder, and none of us must ever underestimate the impact that this problem has on individual households. This year, approximately 7,000 properties have been flooded across the country, including 140 in my constituency. It is worth reminding ourselves that 1.3 million homes did not flood because of good-quality defences that have been built under this Government and previous Governments. Many more properties have been protected as a result of the combined efforts of various agencies and not least local volunteers, who have been unbelievably effective in my constituency and in many other constituencies. The emergency services worked to protect properties during the floods by putting up flood defences, pumping out drainage systems and being on hand. I also commend local authorities, the Environment Agency and many others.
Drainage boards are unsung heroes on flooding. They do extraordinary work, and they are successful because they use local knowledge and have real expertise. They understand how to manage water. I pay tribute to my local authority, West Berkshire council, and particularly Carolyn Richardson, its emergency manager. At an early stage, following the Pitt review and the 2007 floods, she took on responsibility for the local authority’s emergency response systems, feeding through into silver and gold commands, which come into effect for events such as those that have occurred in the past few weeks.
The response by local communities where flooding has taken place, or where there is a threat of flooding, has been quite extraordinary. Friends and neighbours are to be commended for their actions, and in those circumstances we see Britain at its best and communities at their best. Local people have done what they can to help people in their hour of need. There is an ongoing emergency. In the Lambourn and Pang valleys, we have historically high levels of groundwater, and houses that had not been flooded have now been flooded. A number of people are absolutely exhausted as a result of their constant efforts to keep floodwater and sewage out of their properties. We are not yet in the recovery stage.
I am glad that we seem to have moved on, both in the House and in the media, from a rather sterile, binary argument about the need to dredge or not to dredge: the virtues of dredging were opposed by those who said that it was wrong. We seem to have moved on and adopted more sensible thinking. The worst time to make or change policy is in the teeth of a crisis, particularly as we sometimes feel the need to play the game of satisfying the 24-hour news agenda. Parts of the press that I have come across in recent weeks and years—they know who they are—have asked me some of the most stupid questions I have ever heard. I am glad that this ended up on the cutting room floor, but I was asked by one reporter: “Should the Government apologise for the floods?” A Radio Bristol reporter, who I think had just done a course on aggressive interviewing, once asked me, “It’s been raining for days down here—what are you doing about it?” That kind of an agenda and ludicrous editorial pushing, which says to reporters, “This story needs legs: go out there and find someone to blame”, does not show our media at their best. We seem to have moved on, and recently there have been some interesting pieces of work that have begun to show the complexity of the problem we are dealing with.
Mr Graham Stuart
Will my hon. Friend answer two questions on the framework within which this is judged? First, do we need to give more power and resource to local determination? Secondly, do we need to look at the overall framework? Holland has statutory standards that have to be observed, and that trigger the funding, taxation and resource to ensure that, even when flooding is not in the public eye, it continues to be worked on.
Richard Benyon
I think Pitt was right when he said that the whole system had been too centralised and needed to be decentralised. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee disagrees. She wrote a very rude comment about the way we enacted the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and did precisely what Pitt recommended. She said, “No, it was all terribly bad and a waste of money” and that she strongly believed it should all be centralised—I may be paraphrasing, and if she was here she would probably leap to her feet to say that what she had said was not so simplistic. Where local lead flood authorities are good, we are seeing the best sort of devolution of power and responsibility, and we need to see more of that. Where they are not living up to that, we should find ways of making it happen. We discovered through Exercise Watermark, for example, that some are not playing their part, and that some agencies are not fitting into that locally. Water companies were partly to blame at that time, but I do not know whether that is still the case.
Alok Sharma
I share West Berkshire council with my hon. Friend and our right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). I, too, would like to put on the record my thanks to Carolyn Richardson and others who have done such a great job over the past few weeks. Local residents in Purley in my constituency have decided to form a flood action group as a way of getting local people together to liaise with the Environment Agency and others. Is that something my hon. Friend would recommend other communities look at, working together to find a local solution?
Richard Benyon
I applaud the residents of Purley, because I have seen that approach work not only in my constituency but right across the country. The National Flood Forum has a cut-and-paste organisation for local communities to pick up and run with. It is a superb organisation with real knowledge and expertise. I know that the Department and the Environment Agency will also assist local communities in setting up a flood forum. The difficulty is that communities that have never been flooded will be flooded. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) that there will be new flooding, as we all know, and it is in those communities that we want lead local flood authorities to start getting voluntary action going, with flood wardens, parish councils getting involved and local communities setting up those sorts of organisations.
I am guilty of not responding to the second point my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) made, on whether we should introduce a statutory activity. I blow hot and cold about Pitt’s recommendation to create a duty on fire and rescue services to prepare and be equipped to deal with flooding. In my constituency over the past few weeks, we have seen Tyne and Wear fire and rescue service, Cheshire fire and rescue service, East Yorkshire fire and rescue service and many others, all coming through the centrally controlled asset management register, which brings precisely these sorts of assets to our constituencies when we need them, and they are still there today doing wonderful work. Something is happening, and perhaps more can be done.
Miss McIntosh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he did as Minister. Is it a matter of regret to him that we still do not have sustainable drainage systems in place? Does he accept that one of Pitt’s core recommendations was to end the automatic right to connect and make IDBs, water companies and others statutory consultees on future planning applications?
Richard Benyon
I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I was not aware that there was a time limit and will race through my final remarks.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Just to help the hon. Gentleman, there is a voluntary time limit of about 10 minutes.
Richard Benyon
I will be as quick as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton makes an important point. It is a matter of regret that we have not yet brought forward the sustainable drainage provisions, which were the subject of much discussion. I can assure her that I wish we had brought them forward sooner. When they are brought forward, they will make life much better. On the automatic right to connect, I am also on record as agreeing with her on many points.
My most important point today is that we should not look at England’s flood problems through the prism of one area’s hydrology—particularly that of the Somerset levels, which have a complex hydrology. Looking at the Somerset levels as one cohesive hydrological problem is a mistake: parts of them did not flood, or did not flood so badly this time, possibly because of actions that had been taken.
The most important thing we can do is listen to the experts. A very good report was published last week by the Chartered Institution for Water and Environmental Management. We do not use CIWEM enough; its 10,000 real experts are at the beck and call of the Government, the Opposition, companies and local authorities. They have produced a really important report. I brought it with me, but someone has nicked it. [Laughter.] That is what people get if they leave their papers in the House. The report is really good and I suggest that hon. Members read it if they have not done so already. It shows some of our difficulties in managing flood risk and the problems of dredging indiscriminately.
We all have experts in our constituencies. One of mine is Dick Greenaway, who was the surveyor for the Thames Conservancy but has now retired. He has fascinating knowledge of the history of flooding. After the 1947 floods, an enormous amount of dredging took place in the River Thames. A lot of the experts of the time said that it would not work and it was being done for political rather than proper hydrological reasons. The dredging was picking up bronze-age remains close to the surface of the river bed, showing that it had not changed for a long time. Dredging can cause more problems. Since we stopped dredging the Thames to any large degree, the base of the river has dropped because of the action of the river and the change in climate. We ignore people such as Dick Greenaway at our peril.
In conclusion, we should now turn our attention to land use. We have an enormous amount of work to do in joining up land use issues, common agricultural policy reform, the drainage activities of some landowners and land managers and our management of rivers in respect of the water framework directive or flood problems at a certain point or further downstream. Some of what I have seen around the country has been very damaging in terms of flood problems lower down. We have to address that.
Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I agree with his advice to listen to experts; we have just had the privilege of listening to his expertise from his undersung time as Minister with responsibility for these issues.
I speak as one whose home has flooded; what I bring to the debate is the ability to speak as someone who has had that misfortune. I am slightly confused about the number of people who have been flooded in this round of utterly dreadful weather. The number of people flooded in Kent and Surrey around the Christmas period appears to be 7,500. Now we are being told that the number is about 7,000 for the whole country, although many hundreds of homes in various constituencies have been flooded since then. Will the Minister give us the numbers and say on what basis a comparison is being made between the 55,000 who were flooded in 2007 and the number who have been flooded this time?
The central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury was that a great number of people owe the security of their homes to the measures that have been taken since 2007, and he was correct. Given how awful the weather has been, we should reflect that things could have been a great deal worse. In common with what other Members have seen, my experience of having been flooded has been that friends and neighbours have been absolutely terrific in rallying round. I am grateful to my immediate neighbours for the help that they afforded me and my family on Christmas eve and subsequently.
I also want to commend—I declare an interest, of course, as a flood victim—the exemplary behaviour of the insurance industry in my case and all the others I have seen. It appears to have stepped up to the plate and done what it was supposed to do. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) says from a sedentary position that it has not. Obviously, I would want to see that evidence and look forward to him making it clear. All I can do is reflect on my own experience and other reported cases. It is very easy to bash the insurance industry, but according to the evidence available to me it seems to be doing everything it should in the current circumstances.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury on the Flood Re legislation. I note that the Select Committee’s report states that there should be a requirement to detail exactly how the scheme will work, but I assure my hon. Friend that it has been an absolute lifeline for people in my position that the value of our principal asset has not been utterly destroyed. Many thousands of people are immensely grateful for the work he has done in bringing that scheme to the starting gate.
I also want to place on record my thanks to the Government for the measures they have taken during the course of this crisis. The £5,000 grant to make my house, along with all the other houses that have been flooded, more resilient is immensely sensible. I want to take some measures, but they are plainly not insured so the insurance company will not be able to address them. The grant is, therefore, of immense help. I am certain that my reaction will be mirrored by everyone else who has been flooded. It is a really sensible, helpful proposal by the Government. From what I have seen of how people can apply for the scheme, it is being managed appropriately. Council tax relief for people who are no longer able to occupy their homes is also entirely reasonable.
I want to make two central points, one of which picks up on those made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She spoke of the need for us as a country to invest sensibly in flood protection and I agree entirely with her. The Pitt review was right and the scale of our investment in flood defence needs, to be frank, a step change. It has been said that an increase of £20 million a year is needed over the course of 25 years to get to the right level. Given how fast the climate seems to be changing, however, I do not think that is enough. We need to get to the level of expenditure envisaged by the Pitt review rather quicker than the 25 years he recommended when he wrote the report. That seems to be self-evident.
As a number of hon. Members have suggested, this is a sensible investment measure because it will result in huge savings. We ought to look at the expected 8:1 return currently being examined by the Environment Agency with regard to investment schemes and the cost-benefit analysis. That does not seem right to me.
I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion on some matters on which we have co-operated, but I am afraid that I buy Lord Lawson’s general approach. There is a limited amount that the United Kingdom can do on its own to address global climate change. We have to try to carry the other nations of the world with us in order to do what we can to try to improve the climate, but I agree with his general proposition that limiting our ability to grow our economy and to have the wealth to create the protection schemes would be the wrong approach. If we hobble our economy by trying to reduce climate change through occasionally economically illiterate energy schemes, we will simply not be able to afford flood defences or have the money to defend ourselves against the consequences. It is also highly unlikely—we would be extremely lucky if this happened—that we would be able to carry the Indians, the Chinese and the rest of the world with us towards the standards we will deliver in Europe.
Caroline Lucas
It is precisely the people who seem to think that investing in the green economy is somehow a distraction from getting out of our economic difficulties who are economically illiterate. If we put resources into the green economy—insulating every home and properly investing in renewable energies—it will be good for the economy. The green economy is the one bit of the economy that is doing pretty well, so it is a false dichotomy.
Mr Blunt
It is not, if Governments of all hues are tempted to decide which particular subsidy they give to which particular scheme, regardless of their environmental merits in continuing to reduce greenhouse gases. That is what we have seen: when we are in positions of Executive authority, we are all tempted to have our pet schemes to deliver. We should always look to reduce the totality of our contribution to carbon change, consistent with what can be delivered around the rest of the world, so that the whole world acts together. We should not unfairly handicap ourselves, but try to carry the rest of the world with us, and allow the market to make a sensible decision about how we address humanity’s contribution to climate change.
In his extremely good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) elucidated all the very sensible measures that ought to be taken by any community facing flood risk. I can only commend his speech to other hon. Members and to all those interested in this field.
From my experience, I know that the only way my home can be protected is if the schemes happening around Gatwick airport, the area from which the water comes down the River Mole to me, are decent floodwater storage schemes. They need to be properly designed by the Environment Agency to ensure that the water is stored and not simply poured off the second runway—God help us if we get it—and sent downstream to flood communities living below Gatwick.
I know that the Environment Agency has taken a kicking from many quarters, but I must say that from what I have seen it appears to be the best reservoir—that is the right term—of expertise for our country. We should support and use it, and I commend the work of the officials I have met. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury nodding: if he is nodding, I am pretty satisfied that that judgment is right.
Having declared my interest, I conclude by thanking the Government for the way in which they have managed the crisis over the past two or three months. The proposals that they have put in place, which are inevitably for the short and medium-term, are what I would expect the Cobra co-ordinating mechanism to do in the circumstances. However, there is a long-term issue to address: the scale of our country’s investment in flood defence is not adequate, as was identified between 2007 and 2009, and I suggest that we need to address it faster than we currently propose to do.
Mr Robert Walter (North Dorset) (Con)
Looking at the empty Opposition Benches, I wonder whether that UKIP councillor had a point—even if the point was wrong—about God moving in mysterious ways, and whether flooding does not affect Labour constituencies.
Like those of many hon. Friends, towns and villages in my constituency were flooded before Christmas and are still flooded. Just last Friday, I was in the village of Sixpenny Handley, high up on Cranborne Chase, where the flooding—a combination of record groundwater levels and excessive surface water—is just not going away. Residents are still pumping out their homes and the streets are awash with water that will not go away. There has been a very serious case of raw sewage overflowing from a local sewage plant, which was swamped by storm water that should have been kept separate.
That is just what has happened in Sixpenny Handley. I could tell the House stories about the market towns of Sturminster Newton and Blandford Forum; the Stour valley villages of Durweston, Stourpaine, Hamoon, Iwerne Minster, Fontmell Magna and Sturminster Marshall; and other places such as Winterborne Stickland, Milborne St Andrew, Tarrant Hinton and Tarrant Gunville, to list only the worst affected places in my constituency. I apologise to constituents who are listening to this debate or who read it in Hansard if I have missed them out.
On Christmas day, I had to make a 5-mile detour to get to lunch with friends in the hamlet of Hamoon, because the River Stour had broken its banks and there was a foot and a half of water over the bridge. Even then, I had to drive through a main street that was awash with deep water to get to lunch. Hamoon is still cut off from the east. Milborne St Andrew remains a village divided by water, and the village shop is surrounded by a lake that should be Milton road.
I pay tribute not in the first instance to the public authorities and the water companies, which have often been slow to respond, but to the hundreds of volunteers who have rallied around to help their neighbours, in particular the volunteer flood wardens, the parish councillors and all the ordinary people who have done more than just complain about the misery that they have suffered for more than two months.
The storm system that struck the Dorset coast just over a fortnight ago rightly hit the national news because of its sheer ferocity, the extreme rainfall and the damage that it caused. Dorset county council is still receiving in the region of 1,000 public inquiries a week about the flooding, and it has identified more than 7,000 road defects and hundreds of affected properties.
What has not been so visible or of such intense media interest is the suffering of rural residents, such as the many people in my North Dorset constituency who have experienced prolonged flooding not just this year, but every year for the past three or four years. It is that increasingly frustrated minority whom I would like to speak up for today, as we debate the future management of flood risk. They are a minority who, as a result of the focus on more densely populated areas downstream, will continue to lose out unless we rebalance our policy focus.
The third report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, “Managing Flood Risk”, which was published last July, underscores the fact that
“The current model for allocating flood defence funding is biased towards protecting property, which means that funding is largely allocated to urban areas.”
Affected members of the local farming community will no doubt concur with the Committee’s view that
“Defra’s failure to protect rural areas poses a long term risk to the security of UK food production”.
Once again, the rural penalty rears its head.
There is little doubt that, whatever the root cause, the Environment Agency has significantly reduced its maintenance activity. Affected residents, local councillors and flood wardens in the worst hit areas of my constituency are unequivocal in saying that the Environment Agency is no longer clearing rivers and streams and, in some cases, is actively preventing farmers and local landowners from doing so on environmental grounds. To quote one senior councillor, the Environment Agency has
“failed on all their own priorities—people displaced, property ruined, water voles (presumably) drowned”.
I am aware that dredging is not a suitable course of action in every instance. However, in my view, there should not be institutional resistance to such action if, in specific cases, it can lessen the damaging impact of the kind of excessive and prolonged floodwaters that some communities in North Dorset have been experiencing year on year.
Regrettably, villagers who have experienced repeat flooding say that they have been “patted on the head” and told that “nothing can be done”. Frustrated local flood wardens tell of battling against multiple agencies that pass the buck among themselves or veto works that contradict their particular beliefs, and that act only when homes are seriously flooded and not before.
It has taken one flood warden in my constituency nearly seven years to persuade the Environment Agency and the local highways teams that repeat flooding in his village could be better managed if they would just take a look down the drains. When several visits from me and the local media finally convinced them to do that, it quickly became apparent that lack of maintenance had rendered the village drainage system totally defunct. Suddenly, three heavy-duty pumps, which had previously been unavailable, appeared to clear the water, and a commitment to improve the system was secured from Dorset county council, which is the local highways authority. By that time, the village’s main access road had been under water for some seven weeks. The local GP surgery had been forced to close temporarily, and the only village shop estimated that it had lost a devastating £20,000 in turnover.
I share my constituents’ views and experiences here today not to lay blame, but to make three simple points. First, those responsible for flood management do not always listen to the people who know their area the best. As a result, faster and perhaps more cost-effective mitigating action is not always considered. Secondly, conservation should not be prioritised over people’s homes and livelihoods. Thirdly, when multiple agencies are responsible for flood management, they must work effectively together for the good of local communities and with local communities, not behind closed doors.
When communities are, understandably, losing faith, good communication and transparency are vital. The weather this winter has certainly been extraordinary, but a modern civilised society should be prepared. I hope that the Government will learn from the misery my constituents have suffered this winter, and react quickly and favourably to Dorset’s imminent Bellwin scheme claim.
Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)
This is an important and topical debate, and I congratulate many of those who have gone before me on their valuable contributions. It has been an excellent debate and many lessons can be learned. I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) who, with waders to the fore, charged through the floods of the Somerset levels, leading the opposition as though he were fighting off the Spaniards. His example highlighted the difficulties felt by many people affected by flooding. He was their voice for some time and we must take note of that.
The news agenda will now move on from the recent flooding misery in Somerset, parts of the Thames valley and our coastal regions, but for those who were directly affected, the impact will take months if not years to come to a conclusion. Our instinctive reaction is rightly to sympathise with those whose lives have been disrupted, but the frequency of flooding events in different parts of the country and the impact on the lives of individual communities leads me to the conclusion that we need a far more radical approach to both our planning and our response. We must learn the lessons and we must listen to local people.
I cite my town as an example. In 1998, Northampton was inundated with major flooding over the Easter period when a stationary band of rain caused extensive flooding in the midlands from Worcestershire to the Wash. The water levels affecting the area, including Northampton, were recorded by the Met Office as higher than the 1947 floods, which were designated the benchmark for inland flooding in this country. Of more than 4,000 properties affected by the flooding, nearly 2,500 were in Northampton. Two people died, thousands had to leave their homes, electricity supplies were lost, and cars, boats and caravan parks were damaged. Falling as it did on a holiday weekend, the disruption was exacerbated. It has been estimated that the cost of that flooding incident was as high as £350 million, and 70% of those flooded did not have insurance for their homes.
The impact of the flooding was devastating. As a local council, we were determined not only to learn the lessons but to do what was necessary to minimise the risk of future flooding. An independent review described the lessons in terms of floodplain management, forecasting, and investment in flood defences and warning systems and—this is a vital point—their maintenance. Thanks to sizeable pressure exerted by the Northampton flood alleviation group, among others, flood defences were upgraded to a one-in-200-years standard of protection. A £7 million package of works included reinforcement and construction of flood walls and earth embankments, and channel improvements included dredging and widening.
There is important evidence to suggest that in the absence of that approach we would have been affected almost as badly in November 2012, when water levels in the River Nene threatened a further incident. Indeed, the Environment Agency acknowledged the effect of our response, with a spokesman observing that
“flood defence improvements built after 1998 have helped protect several communities from flooding...all of our plans and flood defences have worked, protecting many hundreds of homes.”
That happened because of local pressure. I implore the Minister to understand that lesson, to listen to the people who have been talking to him today, and to put his trust in people in local communities. All too often, the Environment Agency has taken an overall national view without listening to the local voice. I beg the Minister not to do likewise. I know that he has experienced these things himself, so I am hopeful that he will take notice of the need for such an approach.
In 1998 there were no warnings, and allegations were made that flood defences were operated so as to sacrifice some towns for the protection of others. The then Minister acknowledged in this House that
“there were instances of unsatisfactory planning, inadequate warnings for the public, incomplete defences and poor co-ordination with emergency services.”—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1080.]
How often have we heard that in today’s debate? In those respects, nothing of any great consequence has happened since 1998. I am not saying that flood defences have not improved—they have—but little has happened in those respects, and that is because we have not listened to people in the localities.
We know that there are 300,000 more homes on floodplains today than there were 30 years ago. We have built 300,000 homes on floodplains in the past 30 years, and then we wonder what causes the sorts of impacts we have seen recently. We should not wonder. We should take a firmer grip of planning and of architectural design, because many of the houses that were flooded could have avoided that catastrophe had we taken that approach.
I urge the Minister to take note: we cannot expect to eliminate the risk of flooding, but our response in Northampton has proved effective in preventing some sizeable potential flood incidents since 1998. That has happened because we had a local group fighting constantly to ensure that flood protection was high on our agenda. Once the sympathy and immediate response to the flooding in Somerset and the parts of the Thames valley and the coastal regions most recently affected calms down, those residents will, rightly, be asking the self-same questions. The answer will be judged on the quality of the responses, and it will be judged to be satisfactory only if the views of people in the locality are taken into account.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, has been distinguished by many fine speeches covering a wide range of policies relevant to the subject in hand. One of the largest, all-encompassing issues—climate change—has been touched on, and in my exchange with the Green party member the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) I spoke about getting the language right, which is important. I declare an interest as chair of GLOBE International, and refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Last week in Washington, GLOBE International held a climate legislation summit in the US Senate. The Royal Society and the National Academy of Sciences gave a presentation, which coincided with the launch of their new booklet setting out the state of the science—truly chilling information.
I am not a scientist and have always remained sceptical when dealing with climate change and trying to come up with the most rational—I hope—response, and my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) said that this is about acting in the most rational and sensible way with our information and limited finances. Unlike some who would cast Lord Lawson into outer darkness for daring to question any of the orthodoxies, I do not think that is the right way to go. We need an inclusive debate in which we assess the science, taking it with an appropriate pinch of salt as we in this place learn to do with all expert opinion. However, the mounting, growing, consistency of information makes it hard not to accept that the emissions we create in our industrialised societies are contributing—and, more importantly, will contribute —to greater warming of the planet.
We are trying to work out what that means and its implications, but scientists would say that they do not understand it all. Perhaps even more complicated than understanding which areas will be colder, wetter or warmer as a result, is working out the best response to that threat, and that is the fundamental context for this debate on managing flood risk. All scientists—certainly those I have seen—seem to agree that greater energy is coming to the Earth, which will lead to greater levels of precipitation. In some areas there will be intensified drought, and in others intensified rainfall. In that context we must think not only about our response to the current environment—whether or not that is immediately driven by climate change—but about the long term.
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger). One challenge with flooding is that when it is a hot topic, it is a hot topic. Leaders of the day make lots of promises, but there then tends to be a fading away; a salami slicing of budgets. That is why I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon)—quite rightly a highly regarded former Minister—what framework we might need to put in place to deal with that.
Holland has statutory standards. I may get some of my facts wrong, which will doubtless be pointed out, but my understanding is that the Dutch have tried to look at the evidence, drawn a line, and worked out the areas they cannot afford to defend because they are indefensible or so costly that it is unreasonable. Behind that line they have statutory standards and flood boards with much wider tax bases, who are elected—admittedly sometimes with derisory turnouts—to put in place and, as various hon. Friends have said, to maintain the defences, so that that standard is delivered. The Dutch would say that that is far from perfect, but it provides a framework in which people can have some confidence that even if there are no floods for a few years, things will not fall into a state of neglect.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Parish, you have got away with it once. I am not going to let it go twice.
Mr Stuart
I would like to say a few words on how my constituency has been affected. It was devastated in the 2007 floods. The impact on homes and businesses was far greater than it has been in the current floods, but, as others have said, flooding is devastating for every home and business. About 1,100 homes and businesses were flooded by the tidal surge in December that affected people around the Humber estuary. Whatever the cause, flooding has a tremendously strong effect.
I would like to praise the work of internal drainage boards in my area. The south Holderness internal drainage board undertook work to dredge Hedon Haven. Dredging needs to be done in the appropriate way and in the appropriate place—I can imagine dredging having a detrimental effect in the valleys mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The incredibly flat area of Holderness is effectively a man-made ecosystem. It is hard to see improved dredging, which would allow very slow-moving water to get out, leading to anything other than an improvement. It will not stop one-in-200-year flooding events having a negative effect, but it will make them last slightly less long with a less wide impact. Dredging also appeals to local people, who like to feel that those bits of the system that drain water away are kept in a state of usefulness.
One point I would like to make to the Minister is that when the Keyingham internal drainage board in my constituency was looking to carry out dredging at Stone Creek and Hedon Haven, the new Marine Management Organisation decided to charge it for a licence. We spent years pulling all the pools and the political will together to get the sign off to allow us to dredge and let the water out, but what happened? This glorified new quango came along and sent in a suggested bill for thousands of pounds to grant a licence, even though the Environment Agency, when it had done similar work elsewhere, had not charged anything. The MMO decided that it had to do so much more work it ended up charging £10,000 for that one bit of dredging. Will the Minister please ensure that quangos do not inflict charges that stop local people doing what is necessary to make sure that things are more sensibly managed?
After 2007, there was a good response from people who had, up until that point, not performed as well as they should; whether that was Yorkshire Water, the Environment Agency or the council. In our area, people did not know who owned the pumps, let alone whether they were responsible for keeping them going, but since 2007 they have worked together. In front of Willow Grove in Beverley, Yorkshire Water has done a great deal of work, and the local council then came in and worked closely with local residents. In 2007, a very beautiful row of houses was famously pictured all flooded. The picture went out around the world. A flood wall has now been erected in front of those homes, trees have been planted and the Westwood area has been restored. Local ownership really can work and we need to ensure we keep it that way.
We need to ensure that we have as broad an understanding as possible of catchments and their impact. That is why all the agencies involved—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) who is in his place, Members of the European Parliament, Hull city council, East Riding council—supported setting up the River Hull Advisory Board, which I chair. The Environment Agency and others have supported finding the funding to try to have better modelling of the River Hull catchment, so that we can ensure the effective protection of agricultural land—which deserves consideration—rural areas and the urban areas in Hull. The truth is that we are all in it together and we need to ensure that we have a coherent and cohesive approach that works. I pay tribute to all the agencies that have worked together on the River Hull Advisory Board. We really are taking forward a better understanding and a better policy for the future.
Andrew Percy
My hon. Friend is entirely right about the need for catchment plans, but is there not a fear that, such as with the River Aire catchment plan in my constituency, funding will be factored towards the urban areas because of the formula? There is a perception that the River Aire plan is all about protecting Leeds and not protecting those of us a bit further down the river.
Mr Stuart
That is a good point. As my hon. Friend might imagine, one of my purposes as chairman of the body I mentioned is to ensure that, rather than policy being skewed in favour of the rural and against the urban, we do not bind ourselves within policy frameworks to such an extent that we cannot make recommendations to the Government. I do not wish to prejudge the position, but I hope to be able to make common-sense recommendations that will enable the representatives of the city of Hull and the East Riding to speak with one voice, and suggest changes to the framework that will facilitate the adoption of an approach that is as reasonable and joined-up as possible. I recognise that finances are limited, but we need to ensure that no one, in the city or in the countryside, is unfairly deprived of the support that should rightfully be theirs.
Finally, let me congratulate the Government, from the Prime Minister down. I think they have shown that they are committed to dealing with this issue. I mentioned the framework because I want that commitment to continue long after the issue—along with the water—has, we hope, drained away. The Government have introduced a series of measures that have already been mentioned, providing not only grants but funds to help businesses that have been flooded, such as those in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East and for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson).
One thing we must do is cut through the bureaucracy. Perhaps the Minister can help with that. For instance, a small business person in my constituency who owns a pub in Hull contacted the city council when it was flooded. He said “I was delighted to hear on the news that the Government can help me to get through this. I am paying my staff at the moment, because I do not want to lose them and I must look after them, but my pub is taking no money.” He was told “We have not got any forms yet.” “So I cannot apply for help?” “No. We have not got any forms yet.” That kind of nonsense must end. We must ensure that whichever council or other authority is involved can move quickly, because there is nothing more frustrating than hearing people make promises on television, and then finding that the door is barred by some foolish bit of bureaucracy.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The issue of managing flood risk has inevitably come to the fore in my constituency. Since 24 December, some properties have been flooded not only by river water but by foul sewage. Environment Agency records show that back in 2007, Romsey, along with Winchester, was identified as one of the areas in Hampshire that were most prone to flooding.
I want to touch on some specific issues, including development, which other Members have already mentioned. We should think about development not just on the floodplains, but in the catchment areas. We should think about the impact of building yet more houses on land that has previously acted as a natural sponge. We should think about the run-off caused by more tarmac and more roof tiles.
In my constituency, during the run-up to Christmas and into the new year, significant problems were caused by surface water run-off and combined drainage systems that simply could not cope with the amount of rainfall. Since then, however, the problems have been caused not by foul drainage but by the beautiful River Test, which has burst its banks in several places, and by its carriers and tributaries. That has had an impact in many parts of my constituency, not just in Romsey.
I agree with other Members who have said that we need a coherent strategy. We cannot view Romsey in isolation from the villages further north along the river valley, because any work that is done further north will have an impact on Romsey. In the villages, I have heard many calls for dredging, for a widening of the streams and watercourses, and for better weed clearance. However, that could have the effect of sending water down to Romsey and the River Test even faster. We know that the Test has a maximum capacity of about 50 tonnes of water per second, but according to some figures it has run at 55 tonnes per second over the past few weeks. It does not take a rocket scientist to work out what will happen next: the river will flood. We need a coherent strategy that will establish ways of slowing the river down as it passes down the beautiful Test valley.
I am not an engineer and I do not pretend to have the solutions, but I think that we can work something out. Just over a week ago, I was told by the Army that it was necessary to find bits of land that could be flooded safely without affecting people’s homes and without necessarily affecting sites of special scientific interest, in a manner designed by the Environment Agency. The water needs to be slowed somewhat, so that when it arrives at Romsey—where all of it has to pass under one bridge at Mainstone—there is not a deluge but a controlled flow.
It is vital for us to use the knowledge we have gained over the past month or so. The help from the military has been invaluable, but I also pay tribute to the Environment Agency, many of whose staff have been working 24/7, literally around the clock, putting in more than 80 hours per week just to ensure that homes are kept safe and people are not flooded out. We have learnt a great deal. Aerial photographs taken in my constituency show exactly where the Test has flooded. A massive amount of work has also been done on a little-known river, the Fishlake stream. I do not think that anyone knew quite how fragile the bank of that stream was until the Friday at the beginning of February when the water started to overtop the bank and erode the outside of it. Suddenly, it became a crisis point. I do not believe that the Environment Agency identified it as such back in 2007, but we have learnt this time. We have had thousands of man hours of assistance—engineers have tried to establish the best way of preserving and protecting the bank for the future—and we have had critical lessons to learn.
I should pay tribute to a host of organisations in addition to the Environment Agency, particularly the emergency services, but also the Houghton fishing club, a wonderful riparian owner in the north of the constituency. Its members were out digging relief channels and making sure that houses in Stockbridge were protected during the critical first weekend of the flooding. There has been flooding in Stockbridge, but it has been limited to three houses. Stockbridge is a beautiful village on the banks of the Test, and many carriers run under the high street. It is phenomenal that only three houses were flooded; the situation could have been much worse had it not been for the immediate response of the fishing club, which, as an organisation that has existed for many years, knows the river better than almost any other. It was able to identify what could safely be done to create relief for the properties on the banks of some of the carriers that were in the most peril, without endangering further houses.
I also pay tribute to all those who have been involved in the multi-agency approach, and to the independent companies that have made fantastic offers of help with the flood effort. I am thinking particularly of NGS, a company in Southampton that is best known for supplying grit and salt for roads in icy weather. It donated sand for sandbags at a critical time, just as Romsey had established that an additional 40,000 sandbags were needed. I gather that about 80,000 sandbags have now been laid down in the affected part of the borough, thanks to a phenomenal effort. Travelling around the constituency over the weekend, I saw areas where the provision of sandbags was still essential.
On the banks of the Test, the groundwater-fed river is causing a considerable problem. Water levels are still rising, and groundwater springs are still popping up in places where they have never appeared in the past. The village of King’s Somborne, for example, has a wonderful stream passing through it, but that stream is overflowing into many houses across roads, and has made it incredibly difficult for people to get out just in order to buy essentials. Many businesses such as village pubs and shops, which are critical to village life, are unable to trade, having found themselves under several inches or even feet of water.
I echo the call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart). Businesses need to know how to apply for funds: they need the forms. I know that Test Valley borough council has done great work in putting information on its website, but when the applications are made, it will be imperative for funds to arrive, and to arrive quickly.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, as well as the businesses that she has mentioned—which, of course, need all the help we can give them—there are businesses that have been cut off and very badly affected by flooding, although they may not have had floodwater inside their premises? I welcome the £10 million that the Government have already set aside to help those businesses, but does my hon. Friend agree that even more may be needed?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is an industrial estate in Budds lane in my constituency. Budds lane was horrendously flooded. The emergency services had to shut the Greatbridge road because of the depth of water, yet some businesses in the industrial estate were dry. There was no access to them, however, so there was no passing trade, and they could not get their staff into work, but the business itself was not affected by floodwater.
I want to conclude with a plea. Almost inevitably, it comes from the lead flood authority, Hampshire flood authority, and it refers specifically to the flood defence grant in aid. The deadline for the submission to Government is incredibly tight. It was moved from 3 March out to 12 March, but that is only next week, and there are concerns that what will happen as a result is that the most developed and worked-up schemes will be submitted, which might not necessarily be the schemes that would best protect the villages in my constituency or Romsey itself. That is a very real concern, because what we have learned over the past three and a half weeks is where the crisis points are. We perhaps did not know in detail where they were previously, but we do now. It is absolutely critical that the areas which need the help most, in that they need the most investment to prevent future flooding, are the ones that get it. We need to have not simply the schemes that are furthest down the pipeline, but the ones that address where there is the biggest point of crisis.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
indicated assent.
Caroline Nokes
I see the Minister nodding, and I hope he will heed that well, because there is a significant concern in the county council that that might not be the case and that the 12 March deadline is incredibly tight. We in Hampshire have had a significant problem not just with river flooding, but with ground water; as we are a county that is rich in chalk, we inevitably get a lot of groundwater springs. There is surface water run-off which has caused massive problems in my constituency and elsewhere in the county and, of course, we have had problems with foul drainage.
I have in my inbox numerous e-mails from constituents who have been suffering flooding since 24 December—Christmas eve. I would like the Minister to contemplate for one moment what it must be like to be flooded out of one’s house by sewage on Christmas eve, and to be looking at the repairs and considering the future when, in February, the River Test rushes in and undoes all the drying that has occurred up until that point. I have many residents who find themselves in that situation. They are unsurprisingly desperate. They are deeply concerned and unhappy. They are lacking in confidence about whether they will ever be able to reinsure their homes. They welcome the Government’s Flood Re scheme, but in a beautiful river valley such as the one we have in Hampshire many of the properties are inevitably in the highest council tax band and many of them are damaged beyond repair and facing potential demolition and rebuild, and their residents want some answers on whether they will be able to be covered by Flood Re if technically the house is a replacement and a new building, not one that has just been repaired.
I would welcome any answers the Minister is able to give on that front and I appreciate having had this opportunity to speak once more about the flooding in Hampshire, which, sadly, has not attracted the same coverage as the flooding in Somerset or the Thames valley.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Like all Members in this debate, I would like to set out some observations and lessons that I believe can be drawn from the winter flooding, but before I do that I would like to add my thanks to the local Environment Agency team, particularly Andrew Pearce, who heads it, and Ian Nunn, whom I have met and corresponded with over recent weeks. Regardless of Members’ views on how well the agency strategically dealt with some of the issues it faced, there is no doubt that it is full of a lot of extremely hard-working people who have worked long hours and given up their weekends and holidays over the winter to try to help the communities they serve, and they deserve to be congratulated and thanked for that work.
Of the constituencies with the highest flood risks in the country, mine ranks in the top 10, and that is principally because of the risk of coastal flooding to the Romney marshes, a stretch of land that is not unlike the Somerset levels in that it has many areas which are at or below sea level, and it needs to be defended and maintained all the time from the risk of flooding both from rainwater falling on to the marsh directly and from the coast.
We have been protected this winter from major coastal flooding by the coastal storms because of the large investment by the EA in the coastal defences, particularly the sea wall at Dymchurch, and I was pleased to hear that in the new spending round the EA will be investing in the beach defences at Littlestone. I was also pleased to see how quickly it responded after the winter storms to replace the shingle defences along the Hythe bay coast.
Many Members have talked about the importance of local partnerships in dealing with flood risk. I would like to highlight the work of the Defend Our Coast organisation that both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) have worked with over the last four years. It helped to co-ordinate the response from the local authorities, the local community and the EA so as to understand where the risks were, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) met Defend Our Coast when he was a Minister and can vouch for what a fine organisation it is. However, the risk this year has not come from flooding from the sea. Instead it has come from the potential of flooding on the marsh and in the Elham valley from the River Nailbourne.
There are some simple lessons that can be drawn from the experience of this winter, particularly on Romney marsh. There is no mystery to keeping the Romney marsh from flooding. It has been designed to manage large amounts of water. To keep the water moving, there need to be pumps when the water gets too high and ditches need to be clear to push the water out, ultimately into the sea, through the main drainage canals.
There are a few very important areas of work that have to be done well and consistently in order to make that happen. First, the drainage ditches must be kept clear, especially of the build-up of reeds. That needs to be done methodically and all the time. It does not require the ditches to be dredged. The regular cutting of reeds serves to remove silt and keeps the waterways moving.
This work is done by two bodies: the Romney marsh internal drainage board and the EA, with the agency taking responsibility for the larger watercourses. I would pose the question, however, as to whether we should have one body that deals with all this work in a co-ordinated fashion, and whether it would be better for the local internal drainage board to take over the responsibility for all the cutting on the marsh, thereby recouping some of the money it pays to the EA to do that work for it. Sometimes the drainage board will cut smaller ditches that run up to the larger ones and then stop because that then becomes the responsibility of a different agency. It seems to me that it would be more efficient to have one body that is responsible for this work.
The other important area is pumping. All Members have talked about the need to pump water. When there is a build-up of water on flat land, we need to get it off and get it moving. The EA has done a fantastic job in getting pumps installed to keep water moving on Romney marsh. It has installed 15 pumps during the course of the winter flooding. On one occasion I had a meeting with the agency and the internal drainage board on a Friday afternoon to see what more we could do to get more pumps in place to relieve the pressure on residents in Lydd, and most pumps were in place on the Monday. They were therefore very responsive.
One reason why we needed the additional pumps, however, was that some of the older pumps in place on the marsh had stopped working. Maintenance is important. There will need to be substantial capital investment at some point in the near future in some of the older pumps. This investment will save money because the need to bring on relief pumps at short notice often costs more than maintaining the ones we have. We will have to consider where the extra capital investment will come from for the pumping equipment on the marsh. Having efficient pumps working well and the ditches kept clear is a cost-effective and efficient way of ensuring the water gets off and away as quickly asit needs to.
Co-ordination between different services is another issue. People have spoken about the need for co-ordination between the EA, the emergency services and local councils, and I would also include organisations such as UK Power Networks. We have had incidents where, because of storms, there has been a power outage, and therefore power that was being supplied to one of the pumps has gone down, yet when the EA sought to take that up with UK Power Networks, as the responsible body, it might as well have been calling a call centre. There did not seem to be a fast-track response mechanism whereby the EA could speak immediately to someone at UK Power Networks who could tackle the problem. That led to too long a period of time before action could be taken to get the pumps working again or before going to the extra expense of relief pumps being brought in because some of the main pumps had failed. How we build resilience into the network by having better co-ordination between UK Power Networks and the EA is a very important question.
There must also be greater clarity about the roles of the local authorities and the EA, and sometimes also the Highways Agency when there is flooding on roads or water running off roads because the drains and ditches have not been maintained properly. It must be clear who is responsible. Constituents of mine in East Brabourne were affected. They dealt with the situation directly themselves by paying for the relief measures that needed to be put in place. The question of who is responsible for this work needs to be addressed, however. Who should be doing this work on a regular basis? When there is a crisis, do residents know who are the first people to go to? I do not think it is clear, and sometimes this basic maintenance work falls down because of a breakdown in communication between different local agencies. That is relatively easy to fix.
There is no doubt that we have had a huge amount of rain. One resident I met in East Brabourne, Oliver Trowell, has lived in his house for more than 80 years and he had never seen flooding like it—I hope he does not see it again. Residents in the Elham valley, where I live, say that the level of water in the River Nailbourne is such that it may be decades before we see the same level again, but we are having to deal with it. We need to build in elements of stronger local resilience, ensure that the maintenance work is done and consider how the capital investment in some of the basic pumping equipment can be put in place over the next few years to ensure that when the next big winter flood comes we have all the local defences we need in place, the resilience built in and good co-ordination between the emergency services. That is the best way to make sure that the money the Environment Agency is investing in tackling flooding is having the best possible impact and providing the maximum possible benefit to local communities. That is the best way to plan for the future risk of flooding, which we know will inevitably come.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), with whose comments about the need for co-ordination and communication I completely agree. I, too, represent a beautiful coastal constituency—south Devon has taken a terrible battering but it is still beautiful and it is still open for business, and I hope that Members will come to visit us.
I wish to address three points, including the underlying causes and the need to build resilience in our coastal defences—I wish today to concentrate on coastal flooding. First, however, I ask the Minister to listen to the desperate plight of fishermen in my constituency, 21 of whom have written to me in the past fortnight. The situation for them, particularly the crab fishermen, is desperate. A crabbing pot costs £60 to replace and a shrimping pot costs £40—that is before the extra costs of materials such as rope are added on. Most of the 21 fishermen who have written to me—there are many more fishermen in this position—have lost about 100 pots, but some have lost 300 pots. They are looking at having to pay between £6,000 and £18,000. We also need to take into account the desperate conditions they have faced over the past few months. Some have been able to get out on only two or three occasions, and even then they have been having to try to retrieve gear.
That desperate situation is faced by many fishermen, and I would love to read out each and every one of their letters. However, what I shall do instead is ask the Minister to meet me—I have written to the Department—to see whether we could consider having the same scheme for them as has been put in place for farmers. I welcome the farming recovery fund that the Department has set up jointly with an EU funding mechanism, because several funding mechanisms are now in place for farmers: support with business rates, and the many capital replacement grants for those who have been flooded. However, they apply only to people who have been flooded and fishermen, who of course work in a flooded environment all the time, are dealing with a different issue—the damage from the storms—although one very much related to the issue we are debating. Farmers can access a fund of between £500 and £5,000. Will the Minister reassure fishermen that a similar fund will be set up for them? That would be enormously reassuring. As the lead Minister for co-ordinating on this matter, will he talk to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government about rolling out some of the grants that have been made available to farmers and make similar schemes available to fishermen? Many of the fishermen who have written to me face bankruptcy and will lose their businesses for ever, so there is an urgent need for action in the next month, not in three months’ time. I hope the Minister will address that in his response.
As the Minister will know, the other pressing issue for coastal constituencies in the south-west is the resilience of the rail line at Dawlish. As I have said, we are open for business; I would not want anyone to think that because the rail line is cut off, people cannot visit Devon and Cornwall—of course they can. However, the situation is having a huge impact on the region’s economy. I hope that he will address a concern that is mentioned in my constituency. Nobody wants Devon and Cornwall to be cut off every time there is heavy rainfall, and we welcome many of the measures that are being put in place to improve resilience north of Exeter, but resilience measures that bypass the line and take things via Okehampton would have catastrophic results for south Devon. That would not be building resilience; it would be building disaster. We are seeking a super-resilient line at Dawlish; perhaps there could be an alternative route to use in dire emergencies but not a replacement for that route. I hope the Minister will address that issue in his summing up.
I wish to discuss another issue facing some coastal communities in my constituencies by drawing on a couple of examples that illustrate a wider point affecting many constituencies around the country. I have spoken several times about the community of Beesands in my constituency, which I visited recently. The council spent £50,000 trying just a few weeks ago to put back the sea defences that had been washed away there, but they were washed away again with the first easterly and high tide. We do not want to put back what has just been washed away, because that is just throwing good money after bad. Beesands needs an improved sea defence. I praise the work of individuals such as Chris Brook who have gone to enormous trouble to source the rock armour from a quarry in Cornwall. It is all ready to go, the designs are in place to increase the height of the rock armour defences, but unfortunately we have hit a barrier—the need for planning permission. There is confusion because some parts of legislation appear to give councils the ability in an emergency situation to go ahead and put in place these sea defences, but elsewhere there seems to be a measure saying that planning permission is required for sea defences over 200 cubic metres. We cannot afford to delay, because the implications for Beesands of another high tide and a south-easterly are grave indeed. There is no point putting back exactly what has just been washed away, so I hope that the Minister, in his role of co-ordinating things, will try to sweep away some of these bureaucratic barriers, because everyone knows what needs to be put in place and we just need to get it going.
I also hope that the Minister will work with councils, because we would like military support for the lift-in. Anyone who has visited Beesands will know that access to it is incredibly narrow, down a very steep hill, and we may need at least 450 lorry loads. Military assistance, as was put in place for the original delivery of the rock armour, would expedite this delivery and allow us to get the sea defences in place at this critical time. I hope that he will examine this wider point of urgency and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe said, the need for agencies to work together to try to sweep away some of the barriers and just get the work done—that is vital.
I will not say that Beesands is fortunate, because it is in a difficult position, but in some ways the neighbouring community in North Hallsands is in a much worse situation. Even though it is only a short distance down the coast, the shoreline management plan designates it for no active intervention, which has left the local community feeling as if they have been abandoned and people are just walking away. The road access to this community has been cut off and they are currently having to take a detour around a private car park. The trouble for this community is that Devon county council will say, “We only own the road surface.” The council has sort of walked away, and so the villagers are left with rock armour scattered all over the place, there is no access for the local fishing community and the place feels as if it has been abandoned. Will the Minister examine the impact that shoreline management plans have, because I understand that there are some powers to have flexibility in this area and there is no way this tiny local community could afford to rebuild its sea defences on its own?
This is such a sensitive issue because the community at North Hallsands needs only to look a very short distance down the cliff to see what happened to the original community of Hallsands. Anyone who knows south Devon will know that in 1897 an extraction licence was granted to Sir John Jackson, 650,000 tonnes of shingle were then removed from off the coast of the village, the shingle beach dropped dramatically and the village was swept away, with only a few ruined dwellings left behind—a population of 159 lost their homes completely. There is great local sensitivity about this issue within the community of North Hallsands, some of whom are descendants of those original habitants of Hallsands. I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at trying to get them access along their road, or even some help so that they can have assistance in overcoming the complications, and at reviewing the shoreline management plan, which has left them feeling abandoned.
Another issue is that of the Slapton line. The shoreline management plan there is one of managed retreat, which will have terrible consequences for the economy of my constituency. It is an essential communication route between its two halves. To negotiate the alternative route down back lanes requires someone to be exceptionally good at reversing very long distances at speed. It is simply completely inadequate. I call on the Minister to review the shoreline management plan for the whole area to give us some real hope for the future.
Finally, the village of Hallsands stands as a testament to what happens if we ignore man-made impact on climate change. I hope that the Minister will consider climate change in itself—I know he feels strongly about it—because we ignore that at our peril. It is not just that the jet stream has settled over southern England but the fact that it is 30% stronger. If we ignore the problem of emissions, this sort of flooding will not be an exceptional weather event but the new normal.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
What a serious and well-informed debate this is, and what a serious and well-informed speech the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has just made. This has been an excellent debate and I pay tribute to many Members for their contributions, including the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
I echo the remarks made by the hon. Member for Totnes about fishermen and the fishing communities. She made a very important point. We often think about farming communities and businesses, but overlook what is happening in the fishing communities. That point was also made in the good debate that we had in Westminster Hall on Wednesday morning, but it was good that the hon. Lady made it again here today.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) made some excellent points about land management and, as is his wont, spoke powerfully about dredging. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) who spoke powerfully about climate change and the recent report, the launch of which he had attended.
It is a rare occasion indeed when one can know with certainty in advance of a debate in this Chamber that there will be absolute unity among all three parties and that the Minister and the shadow Minister will agree with the Chair of the Select Committee and each other about matters under discussion. Today we have what may in other circumstances be called a prenuptial agreement. Before the Minister—and indeed his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—and I were appointed to our current roles, we sat under the watchful eye of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) who introduced this debate most excellently as Chair of the Select Committee. It is the report of that Select Committee that we all discussed, agreed and signed up to.
The question is whether Ministers have effectively translated the views and recommendations of the Select Committee, which we know they believed and accepted before they submitted to the yolk of ministerial office, into effective departmental policy. Have they followed through on what they actually think and have they done what they said was needed? Well, they have not. Here is what the Ministers both know and believe, as set out in the Select Committee report:
“Funding has not kept pace in recent years with an increased risk of flooding from more frequent severe weather events, and the relatively modest additional sums to be provided up to 2020 will not be sufficient to plug the funding gap.”
They signed up to that in the light of the disastrous decision to cut the flood defence budget in 2010. The Labour Government had left a budget of £670 million. After the election, the coalition partners agreed to reduce that current 2010-11 budget to just £573 million.
Barry Gardiner
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks, because he speaks from personal experience. None the less, the Prime Minister is saying now that money is no object. Many people who have been affected by the floods may feel that it would have been better to say that that money should have been spent not on clearing up the mess but on preventing the flooding from being so devastating in the first place by ensuring that the defences were in place.
Mr Blunt
The point is that it is pretty remarkable that the Government, faced with the financial circumstances of 2010, managed to sustain capital expenditure on flood defences. Having experienced the pressures inside Government, and seen what was being demanded of other Departments, I think that that was a fairly remarkable achievement.
Barry Gardiner
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the figures belie that. In 2011-12, there was a budget of £573 million; in 2012-13, £576 million; and in 2013-14, £577 million. The budget for 2014-15 is £615 million. Over the four-year spending period, the Government have allocated just £2.34 billion to flood defences, compared with £2.37 billion over the previous spending period. Those figures are not the ones that the Prime Minister used two weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions, but they are the ones set out clearly by the independent Committee on Climate Change in its policy note on 21 January, used by the House of Commons Library in its briefing on flood defence spending and set out by the UK Statistics Authority just six days ago. They can even be corroborated on the website of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the correction it had to put out after the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister both “mis-spoke”. As the UK Statistics Authority reported last week, the flood defence budget has seen a real-terms cut of £247 million in this spending period. The Committee was absolutely clear about the risk from the reduction of flood defence funds. Last October, in their official response to the report, the Government said:
“In the context of the wider need to pay down the deficit, we believe this is an excellent outcome and demonstrates the priority this Government attaches to managing flood risk.”
Well, yes, it certainly does.
Miss McIntosh
Is the hon. Gentleman not falling into the trap that I referred to earlier? Successive Governments have been too focused on physical structures that may well fail and need to be repaired. We need to have a better balance between capital expenditure and the revenue maintenance expenditure and to look to sources of funding other than local or national Government.
Barry Gardiner
The hon. Lady will recall my own contributions to the report. I was very keen that we put far more reliance on green infrastructure, and I will come on to that a little later. She will know that the Committee’s report was absolutely clear about the importance of partnership funding. Of course she will recognise—I think she did remark on it in the House a few days ago—that the £148 million that the Government had originally included in their spending figures when Ministers mis-spoke on this issue has not in fact been produced. It was actually £67 million of partnership funding that has been produced, not the £148 million that they counted for the period.
Barry Gardiner
I am under pressure of time, so I will proceed.
Let us be clear: the Government need to do two things. They need to construct more flood defences that will bring more homes and properties into a lower risk of flooding, but they also need to maintain those new and existing flood defences in proper condition so that they continue to provide protection. Unhelpfully, the Government chose to categorise all major maintenance or repair work to existing flood defences as capital spend. Uniquely in the debate so far, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton alluded to that point.
I want to make two points in that connection. First, it is not sensible to increase the new build flood defences without a corresponding increase in the budget for major repairs. In the interests of transparency, the Government need to disaggregate the element of their capital spend budget that is for new defences and the part that is for the major repair and maintenance of assets. Secondly, as the Government have used the capital spend as a proxy for spending on flood defences, they might confuse people who think that they are building more defences when, in fact, because of climate change and storm damage, they are simply spending more on major repairs to existing defences. In other words, there may be no increase in the number of defences or, indeed, the number of properties and homes defended, just an ever-increasing capital repair bill to maintain them. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made that point earlier.
It is therefore important that we examine the fine detail of the EA’s budget in this respect. In a policy note of 21 January, the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change did precisely that. All its figures are based on real terms, according to 2010 prices. The capital is lower in every year of this Government than when they started with £360 million in 2010-11. The figure falls to £261 million in 2011-12 and to £269 million in 2012-13, before rising slightly to £294 million in 2013-14, and finally, at £344 million, falling £16 million short of where it started in 2014-15. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) noted in her speech to the House last week, those spreadsheet figures translate into real projects. The loss of £274 million has resulted in 290 shovel-ready projects being cancelled and 996 being delayed.
Dan Rogerson
I am quite happy to respond to the hon. Gentleman on the generalities when I come to make my main remarks, but the specific number of schemes that he is referring to, which has been mentioned in, for example, articles in The Guardian newspaper, relate to medium-term projects that were in no way shovel-ready. They are schemes that are in the pipeline and that are being assessed. They are projects that will come forward for delivery when they are assessed as being at the stage when that can happen. That is not the same as saying that they are shovel-ready.
Barry Gardiner
I am sorry; the Minister is wrong on that point. The 290 projects that I referred to are those that were shovel-ready and scheduled within that four-year period; the 996 projects are the ones that were not. Significantly, 13 of those schemes were in the north-east Thames valley, where more than 350 homes have been flooded, and 67 of them were in the south-west, where 100 homes have been flooded.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made the further point at Prime Minister’s questions that the EA is planning to make 550 flood defence posts redundant. I specifically questioned the Minister in the Westminster Hall debate last week on whether those redundancies will go ahead. He was pressed for time in his summing up and was unable to explain how he considered that the EA could give people the sort of assistance that we have seen over the past two months and to which many hon. Members have paid tribute this afternoon, and I join them in doing so. How will the EA do that with 550 fewer staff? Today, I ask him to tell the House what roles the people in those posts currently perform. Are some of them the people who actually manage the flows of water in the waterways, by monitoring and operating the sluice gates, the weirs, the locks and the pumps? Do they include the people who survey and assess the condition of flood defences. Do they include the people who prepare the maintenance schedules for those defences? Do they include any of the people who have been helped with the clear-up operations? What is of enormous concern is that those skills and expertise might be lost with these redundancies, with the corresponding loss of service and safety to the public in the future.
Barry Gardiner
I am afraid that I cannot give way because I have to give the Minister time to respond. I have given way quite a lot.
Now the Government have set out their forward projects for capital, by saying that they will spend £370 million a year in 2015-16 and every year through to 2021. The Minister needs to be open with the House today about what percentage of that money in each year will be used for new build flood defences and what will be used for major capital repairs and maintenance. The Committee on Climate Change has been astute in analysing the figure of 165,000 properties that the Secretary of State told our Select Committee were “better protected” in the current spending period when he gave evidence to us last year. It warns that flood risk will actually reduce only for a proportion of the 165,000 properties. Many capital schemes are simply replacing or refurbishing existing defences on a like-for-like basis and to the same crest height. With climate change, many of those homes will be less well protected than when the defences were originally built. The defence may have been repaired, but the risk that it will be overtopped as a result of climate change has increased. Far too many homes and properties are still at risk because the defences that we have are less effective than they once were because of the increased frequency and severity of extreme weather.
As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor pointed out in his op-ed for The Daily Telegraph just over a week ago:
“Investment in flood defences is now £500 million below what is needed and this risks £3 billion in avoidable flood damage”.
The point that he makes is as simple as it is clear:
“we need to make long term decisions now that can save money in the future”.
He has promised that our zero-based review of public spending must not only eliminate waste and inefficiencies but
“prioritise preventative spending that can save money in the long-term.”
That is the sort of commitment that people get when they have a Chancellor who understands the science of climate change, rather than one whose guru is the chief climate change denier in the other place.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said on Wednesday last week, the assessment of how much to invest in flood defence depends significantly on an assessment of the risks posed by man-made climate change. If we are properly to protect the British people against the threat of flooding, we cannot have doubt and confusion within the Government on climate change. But doubt and confusion are what we have from the two Secretaries of State in charge of protecting our homes, infrastructure and industry. The Environment Secretary’s unscientific opinions on climate change and his refusal to be briefed by his chief scientist on the subject are a matter of public record, as is his decision to downgrade flood defence as a priority. The link is clear.
The confusion reached a new height last Wednesday when the Communities Secretary, given the opportunity to show some scientific understanding and rigour, chose instead to cite Lord Lawson. The noble Lord’s dangerous, unscientific opinions on climate science are well known and have no place in the Government, let alone in the answers from a Secretary of State with responsibility for flooding. The fact that the Prime Minister has refused to distance himself from those comments shows that the Government cannot be trusted to get this right. The Met Office has been very clear that such extreme weather events as we have seen are only likely to become more severe and more frequent.
Is the Environment Secretary still refusing to entertain a briefing from his chief scientist on climate science? Will the Minister at least put his own opinion on the record? Does he accept the climate change risk analysis prepared by his officials, which estimates that 1 million properties may be at serious risk of flooding by 2020? Up from the current figure of 370,000, that 1 million estimate includes 800,000 homes. If so, will he tell us whether his Department’s flood insurance proposal—Flood Re—takes account of those additional properties? The Committee on Climate Change adaptation sub-committee has warned that it does not.
The Minister will know that Lord Krebs, as chair of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change, wrote to the Secretary of State in January and made it clear that the committee was available to the Department to ensure that sound science was the basis for all the Government’s long-term funding decisions on flood defences. Will the Secretary of State accept that offer?
I wish to identify one of the most fundamental recommendations made by the Select Committee in its excellent report. The Committee stated:
“We regret that the current regulatory framework does not permit innovative investment in natural flood defences by water companies and expect Ofwat’s next Price Review to rectify this.”
All too often, we reach for concrete and steel solutions to the problem of flooding instead of looking at soft, green infrastructural approaches. There are notable exceptions, and Wessex Water, for example, operates a catchment management system that pays landowners to manage the uplands in a benign way that retains water and purifies it, instead of allowing contaminated water in need of treatment to run swiftly down the catchment. Land management plays a vital role. The retention of flood water upstream through woodland and ground cover in the uplands is every bit as important as dredging in the lower levels of the catchment. Landowners always seek to dredge the river as it passes through their land. That is the quickest way to try to ensure that their own land is not flooded and the problem is passed downstream. This approach was contained in the Pitt review under recommendation 27. When will this most important element of flood risk management, adverted to in the Select Committee report, be implemented?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
I am delighted to close the debate, which has provided a good contribution to the ongoing discussions on flood and water management. As we have heard, we had a debate in Westminster Hall last week on the impact of extreme weather on the south-west, and there was a debate on an Opposition motion on the same day. Today, we have had an opportunity to look at the contribution of the Select Committee in its report and the Government response to that report last year.
As has been pointed out, I was a member of the Select Committee before becoming a Minister. I know at first hand the knowledge and effort that go into producing such reports, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who chairs the Select Committee and, indeed, all members of the Committee past and present, for the way in which they marshal the evidence and hold everyone in the Executive to account. I thank all Members who have participated in the debate for their contributions. As I said, this is a timely debate, and a number of points have been made that did not emerge in previous discussions.
Since the beginning of December, the UK has experienced a prolonged period of bad weather. In England and Wales, it was the wettest January since 1766, and for southern England, this is one of the most exceptional periods—if not the most exceptional period—for winter rainfall for at least 248 years. I reiterate how grateful we are for the response by the emergency services, the Environment Agency, Flood Forecasting Centre staff and the many local authorities that responded to the floods, together with individual volunteers, neighbours and community organisations that have made such a difference in the areas affected.
It is important to remember that, for those who have been flooded, the after-effects last long after the news cameras have moved on. In response to this extraordinary situation, the Government have pledged to help affected businesses, farmers and homeowners. To recap announcements that have been made, we have pledged a £5,000 repair and renew grant for all affected homeowners and businesses to ensure that flood resilience is built into any repair work.
Mr Jeremy Browne
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. On compensation, I know that money is finite, but will the Government look at this in the broadest terms, and in the round? For example, a company in my constituency called Wood Flooring Engineered has incurred losses of up to £1 million, and pubs have lost a lot of passing trade because of road closures due to flooding. I do not think that anyone expects to recoup every pound, but I hope that the Government will look not just at those directly affected by flooding but at those indirectly affected as well.
Dan Rogerson
I can indeed clarify, as others have at the Dispatch Box, that the business support scheme, which is aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises in areas affected by the floods, will look at businesses that have been affected by the extreme weather, not just those that have been inundated directly. There is a fund for farmers who have suffered waterlogged fields to help restore those fields to farmable land as quickly as possible, along with £30 million for local authorities for road maintenance, which should help affected areas to recover.
We have to remember that, outside current events, flooding is disruptive to people’s lives in the long term, and planning and defending against flooding remain a long-term priority for DEFRA and for the Government as a whole. We are spending £2.4 billion over the four-year period between 2010 and 2014, compared with £2.2 billion in the previous four-year period. That means that we have investment plans to improve protection to at least 465,000 households by the end of the decade. Looking forward, we have made an unprecedented long-term six-year commitment to record levels of capital investment to improve defences: £370 million in 2015-16, and the same in real terms each year, rising to over £400 million in 2020-21.
Miss McIntosh
My hon. Friend is addressing the very point that the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and I made, which goes to the heart of the argument. There have been delays from the Department, particularly in implementing sustainable drainage systems—that is not necessarily its fault—and the review of partnership funding has not yet reported. Will the Department look favourably at allowing more transfer from capital expenditure to revenue and maintenance expenditure, as the hon. Member for Brent North suggested? In the long term, there are opportunities for water companies and others such as insurance companies to contribute to both funding streams.
Dan Rogerson
The figures that I am setting out into the future are for capital spending, and we expect revenue amounts to be settled as budgets are introduced for each year. However, the points that the Chair of the Select Committee makes about seeking contributions from all those involved in water management are entirely valid. In her speech she spoke about water company investment in water management that goes beyond the “hardware” side of things and looks more at the softer side of managing water through land management solutions. Ofwat is considering what it does with totex—total expenditure. It is looking at expenditure across the piece, rather than just at capital—the sort of things that appear on balance sheets that, in the past, would have been the focus. I accept that many people want to change that, so the fact that Ofwat has allowed water companies to do more of that will be beneficial.
The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), who is not in the Chamber today, but who took part in the Westminster Hall debate, pointed out the involvement of South West Water, along with my Department, landowners and managers, in an initiative looking at how water can be retained on Exmoor, which has made a difference to the moor’s catchments. That is a good example of the sort of work that can take place. The Chair of the Select Committee often speaks about what is happening in her constituency with the “Slowing the Flow” project, which is working on land management solutions. She is absolutely right that we need to emphasise the economic importance of investment in flood defences and, indeed, in water management. If we can prevent flooding and take that blight away from land that could be developed successfully, that would make a big contribution. If we can avoid the impacts that hon. Members have discussed, we can make a huge difference to local economies.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Will my hon. Friend address the points that I made in my speech about building on the floodplain and, where it is not his ministerial responsibility, undertake to have a discussion with his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to address the uncertain but doubtless growing liabilities in Flood Re and SUDS, so that we do not build up a bigger and bigger problem for ourselves in future?
Dan Rogerson
My hon. Friend made that point earlier, and a number of other Members referred to the planning process. The good news is that the advice that the Environment Agency gives is taken into account in the vast majority of circumstances. However, there may be examples where we could look at that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has discussed the response and recovery aspects of these flooding events at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, will have heard that cry, and the national planning policy framework, which the Government have set out, makes it clear that we should not build on floodplains. There are locations, such as those, as we have heard, in the Humber area and so on, where that means no development at all, and the guidance makes it clear that we should see more resistance and resilience built into existing properties. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made that point in response to an intervention.
Mr Graham Stuart
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. With regard to increasing an area’s resilience, how would the Government view any proposals to widen the levy area that supports internal drainage boards so as to increase the resource in local hands for improving resilience?
Dan Rogerson
Local authorities would no doubt take a view on that. We would need to look at what taxes and levies are being raised from an area in total, because we know that families are hard-pressed and we do not want to increase burdens. If that could be done within what is raised by local authorities, using the relationships they have with internal drainage boards, individual proposals could be considered. There are places in the country where the possibility of setting up new internal drainage boards is being examined. If we can overcome the barriers, I think that would be very helpful.
The hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton also talked about protecting rural land, which was mentioned in her Committee’s report. Some 95% of arable land in England is either outside areas at risk of flooding or benefits from at least a one-in-75-year standard of flood defence. In fact, the partnership approach that the Government have taken means that some schemes that would not otherwise have been funded are now coming forward, because local funding means that the grant in aid now makes a sufficient difference to take a project forward. With regard to the areas that have been protected, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), my predecessor as Minister, was right to give the figure of 1.3 million properties. Great areas of agricultural land have also been protected by many of those defences, so it is not a case of setting one benefit against another; obviously we seek schemes that will do both.
On the Bellwin scheme, which the Select Committee’s report also mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and his colleagues in DCLG have now opened up the process of re-evaluating the Bellwin scheme, both in the short term, to meet the needs that communities are facing as we speak, and to look at how the scheme will operate in future. Hopefully my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and members of her Committee will welcome that.
We are also conducting river maintenance pilots, another area that my hon. Friend focused on. In Somerset, which I have visited on a number of occasions recently, there are pilots on the Brue and the Axe, a little further away from the Parrett and the Tone, where some of the most extreme impacts of the recent flooding have been felt. Those pilots will run for a year. We need to allow them to run their course to ensure that we learn the lessons properly, because there are different circumstances in different catchments, as hon. Members from across the House have said. We must use the evidence to ensure that we use the right tools in the right places.
On sustainable drainage, we are bringing forward the regulations to implement those systems. As my hon. Friend said, progress on thatis slower than we might have liked, but we should be tabling those regulations next month and see them implemented over the course of this year.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion set out powerfully her views on climate change. I hope that she will welcome the discussions that DCLG is having with local authorities, because she mentioned the need to take into account local knowledge, what local authorities are facing on the ground and what they are having to do. There are also approaches to land management that give us the opportunity to employ a range of strategies for managing water higher up catchments, looking at dredging where it is appropriate, particularly in catchments where rivers flow slowly and there is a reliance on pumping to clear water from the land.
The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) followed up on the Adjournment debate he secured after the coastal surge in early December. I look forward to hearing more from him about particular schemes, although he will know that I will not personally be sitting in judgment on those and that they will have to make their case alongside other areas of the country. However, hopefully the fact that we are investing the money and bringing forward the partnership money to take forward those schemes will give him confidence that we are taking such schemes very seriously indeed. We are investing in coastal defences as well, so it is not just about defences along rivers. Coastal defences are crucial, so we are continuing to invest in them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury set out once again his track record on these matters. It has been a privilege to take over from him, given all his work not only on flood management, but on implementing Flood Re, which we think will make a huge difference to those who need access to affordable flood insurance and give them confidence for the future. He referred to community action and the great strength and resilience of local communities where people have helped each other, and he is absolutely right. When I visited Somerset last week I met the Flooding on the Levels Action Group, which has taken a great deal of energetic initiative not only to support communities there, but to serve as a focal point for those from outside Somerset who wanted to help, whether through financial assistance or in kind. There are many lessons to learn about really harnessing that kind of voluntary activity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury stayed away from the blame game. He was quite right to point out that we could all be blamed for the weather—of course, he can sit back and relax, because it is now my fault when it rains, not his. He mentioned flood forums, which are very important. In my local area, the Cornwall flood forum is making a significant contribution to resilience and readiness in the community. It discusses not only what has happened, but what might happen and how communities can be ready for it. The National Flood Forum brings together that expertise and provides tools on its website about the property-level protection we have heard about today. The Government, through grant in aid, provide those who might struggle to afford some of those products in their home with the opportunity to have support in bringing them in, which I think is welcome. For those who have the resources to install such products in their properties, the National Flood Forum provides guidance and advice, so they should visit its website to see what is available.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt) talked about the impact of flooding and the need for the insurance industry to get on with the job. The Government stayed in contact with the industry throughout the Christmas and new year period and into January and February to ensure that we fed back what we were hearing from people on the ground. I have certainly been impressed by how the industry has ensured that their loss adjusters are out there. If hon. Members want to raise any local concerns with me, I will of course pass them on to the Association of British Insurers. He welcomed the help for those who have been flooded. As I have mentioned, we have offered a package of measures to help those affected. Like many other Members, the hon. Gentleman put on the record his support for those in the Environment Agency, who have worked incredibly hard during this period. It has been relentless for those who have been under threat, but it has also been relentless for the Environment Agency. It has moved staff around the country to meet those needs and performed heroically in many areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate also asked for figures on the number of properties that have been flooded. I can confirm that since the coastal surge on the east coast in early December, 6,890 properties have been flooded in England. Those properties have had standing water inside the building. Many others have experienced flooding in their gardens, on their streets or in local businesses, and many communities, such as Muchelney in Somerset, have been completely cut off. The effects will have reached many more properties, but the number that have actually been flooded is about 7,000. The Government have prioritised flood defence repair. That is why we have set aside £130 million to ensure that the capital we are investing goes to new schemes, not to repairing those that have been battered by the extreme weather events.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr Walter) mentioned volunteers and the huge contribution they made in his constituency. He talked about the importance of using local knowledge, which I think is right for learning lessons on how to handle flooding and the ongoing management of watercourses and flood risk. The hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) made a similar point about local knowledge and experience and talked about campaigning to get those resources to his local area.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness talked about the pressures on us all, given the changing climate, and the need to take account of the evidence in what we do. He gave the specific example of licensing costs and the Marine Management Organisation. It is important that we have agencies that work on the basis that if there is a cost, it is covered as a fee to them, so I am happy to look at those circumstances if he thinks they represent a barrier.
The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) talked about the range of solutions that might be appropriate in different areas, the importance of what local groups have done and the serious and ongoing impact on local communities. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) thanked Environment Agency staff, and I thank him for that; many hon. Members are acquiring a depth of knowledge about the hydrology of their constituencies.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made specific points about coastal management plans, and I will be happy to discuss those with her. Obviously, there will be an element of local involvement in those solutions; local authorities, for example, will play a role in protecting the road infrastructure that she mentioned. The hon. Lady was right about the fishing industry. She has been advocating intervention. I went with the Deputy Prime Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) to Porthleven, in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I met fishermen there and have met fishermen in Padstow; they came from around north Cornwall to discuss the issues with me.
We are listening closely as a Government to the fishing industry, particularly those involved in crab and lobster fishing and shrimping, which the hon. Lady mentioned, to see what might be done to help. I will not make an announcement about that now, but I know that my fellow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), is considering the matter closely. I hope that we will be able to offer support and advice to the fishing industry very soon.
Like other hon. Members, the hon. Member for Totnes raised planning issues, although those are primarily for the Department for Communities and Local Government. No doubt note will have been taken about what has been said; we can feed the points back to colleagues.
Partnership funding was raised, in relation to the Government’s approach to make sure we deliver more schemes than would otherwise be possible. We are on course to bring in £148 million of additional funding compared with £13 million under the previous spending review. The Opposition have rightly pointed out that that has not entirely happened, but the spending review period is not yet over; it would have been slightly alarming if it had all happened by this point. We are on course, and I welcome the contribution from the private sector and local government to delivering the schemes.
Recent events will have brought into sharp focus the initial emergency responses to flooding in the UK and the need to learn lessons when things have not worked as well as they might or when we can build on successful responses. We can focus on short-term recovery, but we also need to ensure that long-term defences remain a priority for the Government. I look forward to working with Members across the House to learn the lessons from the past and ensure that we protect more homes and businesses more securely in future.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54(4)).
Department of Energy and Climate Change
Government Levies on Energy Bills
Mr Tim Yeo (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am delighted that the House is debating this important subject. Its importance can be gauged by the fact that by 2020 the amount of possible spending under the levy control framework will be £7.6 billion a year, more than double the total budget of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The fact that the money comes from consumers rather than taxpayers is, as far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned, rather beside the point. The two categories largely overlap, and as the sums are so large it is essential that Parliament should scrutinise effectively and carefully how they are spent. I shall come back to that point.
I begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In doing so, I emphasise again that my views on climate change and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions were formed more than 20 years ago, when I had ministerial responsibility at the old Department of the Environment in John Major’s Government. I studied the science as it then was and concluded—as, I hope, an open-minded layman—that the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere was likely to be a significant and possibly the main cause of the observed changes in the climate that the world was and still is experiencing.
My views have not changed in the intervening 21 years. I have expressed them regularly in private and public as a member of the Government and of the shadow Cabinet, including as shadow Secretary of State for the Environment and for Trade and Industry, and as a Back Bencher. The financial interests recorded in the register have all been acquired since I left the Front Bench in 2005. Suggestions that my views have in some way been influenced by those interests are not supported by the facts.
I hope and believe that we are now seeing the last gasps of the flat-earthers in the debates on climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fifth assessment report has reinforced the overwhelming scientific consensus that the conditions of climate stability that the world has enjoyed in the past few hundred years and which have made possible the unprecedented and phenomenal success of one of the earth’s most recently arrived species—human beings—are now threatened by the activity of that same species.
I warmly welcome the public statements made in various parts of the world in the past few days by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Education, all of whom have endorsed those scientific conclusions. That mainstream acceptance of the science, which is shared on a bipartisan basis by the Opposition, is very helpful because it allows us to concentrate on what the real debate should be about: how should we in Britain tackle the challenge of cutting our own greenhouse gas emissions? How can we play our part in helping the whole world move towards a low-carbon economy?
Of course I understand the fears of some about the short-term additional cost of low-carbon investment and the burden that that might place—particularly on poorer households, for whom energy bills are a significant anxiety. I also understand fears about the wider impact that that cost could have on Britain’s competitive position. Those are all legitimate concerns, and they should be assessed in the context of the knowledge that action in Britain alone will not solve the problem.
However, we need to be aware that other countries are now moving quickly—surprisingly quickly in the case of China, perhaps. Even in the United States a substantial change in what is happening on the ground has occurred in the past few years. Those extra costs will disappear entirely if the price of carbon rises, as seems probable if international concern about climate change intensifies in the next few years. I am confident that those countries—I hope that Britain will be among them—that lead the way towards a low-carbon economy will in the medium term not just have done the right thing environmentally but reap an economic benefit, in the form of lower costs and improved competitiveness, as the price of carbon rises, whether owing to the widespread introduction of carbon taxes, to a carbon price driven by emissions trading or, as seems most likely, to a combination of the two.
All that is directly relevant to this debate. I warmly welcome the establishment of the levy control framework and the pathway to 2020 helpfully set out by the coalition at the end of 2012. That was reassuring for investors and gave great encouragement to those of us such as me who are extremely concerned about climate change. It encouraged us to see that a realistic amount of support will be available to promote and support low-carbon electricity generation, including a significant element of renewable energy.
I want to look first at the scope of the levy control framework—what it covers and what it does not. We already know that a range of low-carbon electricity generating technologies will be covered; they have already been identified and strike prices for contracts for difference have been announced. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed this evening that the list is not exhaustive and that proper consideration will be given in future to extending it. None of us knows today what technologies may be available in a few years’ time; some may offer better value for money than those available now.
I would also like the Minister to clarify how the capacity mechanism will fit into this. There is an urgent need for clarity on this subject. He will be well aware of the narrow margin of surplus generating capacity that will exist a year or two hence. Part of that problem is caused by the reluctance of investors to commit to new investment in gas-fired power stations, despite the glittering prospect of large quantities of domestic gas reserves if the reluctance of local communities to exploit them by using fracking can be overcome. I welcome the Government’s incentives, but I am not sure that they are yet sufficient to persuade some of the residents in beautiful parts of our crowded countryside. We are even seeing a reluctance among investors to bring existing gas plants out of mothballs. That reluctance is unlikely to be overcome until more details have been revealed of how the capacity mechanism will work in practice.
Of course, levy control framework money will not be confined to supporting electricity generation. Any light the Minister can shed on how it can be used to support demand-side measures would be welcome. It would also be useful to explore how the cost of supporting carbon capture and storage—on which I welcome the recent progress that has been announced—will fit into the other priorities for the levy control framework.
On to the key issue of expenditure control, levy control framework spending will, by its nature, be very hard to predict: the lower the price of gas, the greater the cost of the contracts for difference that has to be met from the LCF. Given that the Department for Energy and Climate Change forecasts that, by 2020, as much as a third of all LCF spending will be accounted for by CfDs, it would be helpful to know what assumptions my right hon. Friend has made about gas prices in the pathway through and up to 2020 in arriving at the estimate of about £2.5 billion of LCF spending that is to be allocated to meet the cost of CfDs.
Will the Minister also say a bit about what will happen if gas prices turn out to be much lower? That would, of course, be a happy scenario for consumers, because it would mean that their energy bills were lower, but it might result in a substantial shortfall in the LCF. How will that cost be met? Will consumers be expected to bear the burden of the overrun? That might not be such an unreasonable prospect, given that in such circumstances the part of consumer bills accounted for by the wholesale gas price, which is substantial, would be lower than expected.
By the same token, the opposite scenario is also interesting. What will happen if gas prices are much higher than expected? In theory, at least, the cost of the CfDs could be zero. Does that mean that lots more contracts would be offered to allow a much greater level of guaranteed support for low-carbon electricity generation, or would the Government simply rely on the market to incentivise new low-carbon investment in view of the rising cost of fossil fuels?
In view of all those uncertainties and the inherent difficulty of making long-term future projections about energy prices, will the Government publish annually an update on the assumptions about the gas price they will use in reaching their judgment about the cost of CfDs within the LCF?
On the subject of controlling costs, I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s comments about the value for money offered by different technologies. The main aim of the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and CfDs is to help Britain meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets by encouraging low-carbon electricity generation, but affordability is also a very important aim of energy policy. I note with interest that the Government believe that offshore wind may make the biggest contribution of all the technologies currently included for support by the LCF.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because up until now I have agreed with everything he has said and I fear that my question might lead us to depart from that. Does he agree that if we compare the strike price for nuclear in 2023 with the price of offshore wind, onshore wind and even solar photovoltaics in 2023, we will see that nuclear is vastly more expensive, and that if we are serious about keeping energy bills down, it is ludicrous to support those technologies whose price is likely to go up, rather than those whose prices are coming down?
Mr Yeo
I had a hunch that that was the issue the hon. Lady would raise. For the most part I agree with a great deal of what she says on this and some other subjects. It is perfectly true that, arithmetically, nuclear is very expensive. I think that the decision, which I support, can be justified on only two grounds. The first is that I am uncertain that, even with all the other support, we will be able to generate enough electricity from low-carbon renewables to meet the targets we have set for 2020 and beyond, from 2030 through to 2050. It would need some pretty heroic assumptions about the roll-out of some of the technologies to think that we could replace the whole of the electricity currently generated by nuclear with electricity from other low-carbon sources.
Secondly, I think there is a real prospect—though I do not suppose I will carry the hon. Lady on this point—of the cost of nuclear coming down substantially if we see a big expansion of the industry. Nuclear power stations in China, for example, are going to become almost a commodity given the number that will be rolled out. In the 2020s, we might find that we will be able to buy them off the peg at a much lower price than the admittedly high price currently expected for Hinkley Point.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I, too, share my hon. Friend’s concern that we will not be able to replace current generation with renewables in the way predicted. Does he, therefore, share my concern that, because of the recent “final investment decision enabling for renewables” process, we are likely to lose Eggborough power station, which currently accounts for between 2% and 4% of the UK’s generating capacity, along with 800 jobs? Given that it was a shovel-ready project, it is frankly bonkers and utterly barking mad that it has not been given the go-ahead for biomass conversion.
Caroline Lucas
It is not just a question of heroic assumptions about renewables. Actually, I think those assumptions are not so heroic, particularly if we add community energy and energy efficiency, which along with conservation is always the poor cousin in this debate. We know that we could make huge inroads on the amount of energy we use if we were serious about that. If we combine that with renewables, there is plenty of evidence from the Centre for Alternative Technology and many others that we could get the nuclear reductions we need without nuclear or more fossil fuels.
Mr Yeo
I take note of what the hon. Lady says and I respect her views, but she has not quite persuaded me that it will be safe to say no to nuclear in the immediate future. I think it is useful to have it as a weapon in our armoury, notwithstanding the high cost of this first new nuclear power station, but it is worth looking at and updating our assumptions. Nuclear is not exactly going to be in production tomorrow. There are still a few gaps to close between cup and lip before it will be in the bag. I am sure the European Commission’s objections can be adequately dealt with and I shall write to the Commission myself shortly on that very point.
I want to discuss a possible scenario. Of all the technologies being supported at the moment, the biggest expectation is for offshore wind. In 2017, offshore wind will qualify for a strike price of £140 and onshore wind for a strike price of £95, and let us suppose that the price of gas-fired electricity will be about £50 at that time. In effect, we are saying that offshore wind requires a subsidy that is double that for onshore wind and 40% higher than that for large-scale solar PV. Does that really represent good value for money for consumers?
Hitherto, I think that most consumers have been bewildered about the cost of supporting different low-carbon technologies. A system of renewable obligation certificates is obscure even to those of us who have tried to take an interest in the matter for a number of years, but suddenly it is going to become clear that certain technologies are very much cheaper than others. I wonder if, with a generous system of incentives, some of the cost advantages available to onshore wind—I know that it is probably the most controversial form of energy—were shared with the communities hosting onshore wind farms, some constituents might find the possibility of having a couple of wind turbines on the other side of the village green, given the offer of a freeze in their electricity price for as long as they were in production, less unacceptable than they currently do, but I merely speculate.
Staying with 2017, let us suppose that the gas price falls much lower, which many people would of course welcome. That would raise the cost of the already awarded contracts for difference that have to be met from the capped levy control framework. Is there a risk that the Government might have to stop offering any new contracts for difference, because it was clear that all the available money would be used up by the contracts already awarded? In that context, will the Minister explain why the Government think it is sensible to plan for as much as a third of all the electricity generation supported through the levy control framework to come from offshore wind, which is one of the most expensive forms? Will he comment on the danger that some projects that offer better value for money might get squeezed out if too much is allocated to expensive technologies early on?
Without clarity on such issues, there seems to me to be at least a risk of uncertainty in the system putting off some investors. It might at least encourage others to factor into their projects a higher price for the return on capital than would otherwise be needed in a more certain context.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman, but I am slightly confused about what he is saying on offshore wind. The whole point of contracts for difference was to give certainty, as well as to give a boost to emerging technologies and get them off the ground. If the Government are now looking at not perhaps granting so many of them, does that not undermine the whole purpose of the contracts for difference system?
Mr Yeo
It depends on our priority. Mine would be to get the largest amount of low-carbon electricity generated at the least possible subsidy cost to consumers. Given the figures that are currently projected, I am simply saying that the mix looks unlikely to achieve that objective. I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that if we are to support any technology, a degree of predictability is important for encouraging investment—I am not advocating a lot of chopping and changing—but at the same time, we are in the early stages and getting better value for money might be such a high priority, given the burden that energy costs now represent to consumers, that we should consider whether the projected mix is right.
On the subject of uncertainty, although the levy control framework helpfully gives a considerable degree of predictability for the rest of this decade, seven years is not all that long given that the investment cycle in the energy industry is very long. Will my right hon. Friend say when we might get at least an indication of the likely levy control frameworks beyond 2020?
That is particularly important in the light of the issue that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has just raised about nuclear. There is clearly at least a perception that nuclear will take a great chunk of levy control framework money in the 2020s. If we do not know the total, some people thinking of bringing on new investments later in this decade may be put off because they fear that not enough money will be available.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
I am not sure whether I heard my hon. Friend correctly. Is he really asking me to advise the House on public expenditure totals beyond 2020—two elections hence?
Mr Yeo
I am not sure whether the total comes under public expenditure. The money is not coming from taxpayers; it might merely affect electricity prices. In the context of the fact that the Committee on Climate Change now sets carbon budgets a minimum of a decade in advance and that we now have a fourth carbon budget that covers the period up to 2028—even the third carbon budget goes beyond the period for which we know the levy control framework total—I am simply asking for some indication of the Government’s thinking. Will the total be maintained in real terms at £7.6 billion index-linked, given that a very big demand on levy control framework money will be made in the early to mid-2020s if the nuclear power station goes ahead?
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
To underline the hon. Gentleman’s point, does he agree that the likely take on CfDs in one year when Hinkley C comes on stream in 2023 will probably be more than the total money currently available for new entrants under the levy control framework? Does he therefore wish to emphasise that it would have a seismic effect on CfDs over the period 2020 to 2025, and the Minister might also want to consider that point?
Mr Yeo
I think of the hon. Gentleman as an hon. Friend, because we agree on so many important issues. He has made his point quite effectively, without the need for me to comment on it. I remain a supporter of investment in new nuclear power stations, notwithstanding the concerns about the arithmetic eloquently introduced into the debate by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. I simply make the point that without any knowledge of the levy control framework total in the 2020s, there is certainly a perceived and probably an actual risk that nuclear might crowd out some other technologies.
May I tempt the Minister to tell us what he thinks is the prospect for the floor price for carbon?
Mr Yeo
I thought that the Minister was a bit like Oscar Wilde, who could resist everything except temptation, but perhaps he will resist it on this matter. I understand why the floor price policy was introduced, but it does not cut greenhouse gas emissions by a single kilogram, and it raises the costs of British business. If the Treasury’s priority is to help Britain to become more competitive, it is slightly bizarre for it to insist on that policy. There are of course now widespread rumours that we will soon hear that the floor price for carbon will be frozen, instead of going ever upwards. If that is the case, the sooner that it is made clear, the better.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given the mounting pressure generally from industry across Europe against very high energy prices, which forces investment outside Europe, does my hon. Friend think that the whole European framework on carbon is due for substantial amendment?
Mr Yeo
I cannot go down the route suggested by my right hon. Friend and remain within the scope of this debate, but I simply say that it is in everyone’s interest to make the European Union emissions trading system work more effectively. If it did, there might be no need for the floor price for carbon anyway. An EU-wide carbon price driven by a trading mechanism would at least be even-handed in its impact across the 28 countries of the EU, and it would not place a special burden on Britain in the way that the floor price for carbon currently does. I therefore urge the Minister to throw Britain’s full weight behind efforts being made to make the EU emissions trading system work more effectively.
In conclusion, I draw attention to my Committee’s recommendations about how the Department should report to Parliament on the cost of all schemes funded by the levy control framework. I hope the Minister agrees that accepting the recommendations would boost confidence in the Government’s readiness to seek value for money from levy control framework funds and to be transparent about decisions. As I have mentioned, the present system of renewable obligation certificates is pretty hard for most consumers to understand; feed-in tariffs, contracts for difference and the whole levy control framework should be easier for the public to comprehend. The establishment of the levy control framework was a positive and helpful development, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognises that exercising effective parliamentary scrutiny on how those very substantial sums of money will be spent is essential for public confidence. I commend my Committee’s report to the House.
John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo). He does an excellent job as Chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee and it is a pleasure to be a member of it.
My great fear is that we are losing sight of climate change. With the country in austerity, people see cheap fossil fuel as an answer to their prayers as they try to keep costs down. However, climate change causes long-term damage, as we have seen with the recent floods, which are more than a little unusual. Some of us believe that that is down to climate change in at least a small way, if not in a large way.
The levies are important. About 50% of the cost goes to pensioners and those on low incomes who need help from schemes such as the warm home discount. The rest goes towards increasing investment in new plants, in the hope that there will be affordable energy in the long run. I have often taken part in debates on these matters and I make no apology for wanting to look after those in society who have the least and who need the most help.
The explanation of the levy control framework by Her Majesty’s Treasury states that its aim is to ensure that the
“fuel poverty, energy and climate change goals”
are met
“in a way that is consistent with economic recovery and minimising the impact on consumer bills.”
I think all Members of the House would agree with that, but sadly it does not happen.
The National Audit Office says that the levy control board has
“focused on cost control and not the associated impacts on energy policy outcomes.”
It is looking at only one half of the equation. We need to look at the impact of the levies on consumers’ bills, whether it is as high as the energy companies say it is or not. However, we can see their worth only if we know what the impact is. The Department of Energy and Climate Change says that its energy and climate change policies will reduce bills by about 11% or £166 by 2020. How can we know if that is the case if we do not know what the impact of the policies will be? We need to be sure about the impact on people’s energy bills.
There are recommendations in the Select Committee’s report that would make the information on that clearer. For example, it recommends:
“Easily identifiable ‘costs per customer’ for each scheme on a consistent basis across years and between reports”.
Clear reporting on how levies are be raised and spent is particularly important because the levy control framework limit will increase from £3.184 billion in 2013-14 to £7.6 billion by 2020-21. Some 83% of people are worried about energy prices, so it is important to ensure that we do not contribute to the increase in prices.
Mr Weir
The hon. Gentleman is making a very good point. Is it not also important that it is made clear exactly what the impact of a levy is on individual bills? We are often told that green levies are pushing up bills, but the renewables obligation actually makes up a relatively small part of the average dual fuel bill.
John Robertson
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I have always felt that the amount of information that goes out to the ordinary person in the street when he opens his gas and electricity bill is either too complicated for him to understand or too simple and does not provide enough information. The Government have to ensure that people are educated. I am not talking only about the education of the general public, but about the education of the energy companies. They need to understand exactly what their job is in relation to customers. Yes, they are there to make money and to deliver electricity and gas, but they forget that they are dealing with real people—real people’s lives and jobs.
There has to be stronger control of the companies. If we are to take money through the levies, we need to ensure that it is spent properly and, to go back to the Treasury’s statement, that it is used to look after people in fuel poverty. We need to make it easier to show that the energy companies are trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
Mr Redwood
Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the main reason that the bills are so high is the adoption of low-carbon technology? It is not the gross profits of the companies but the low-carbon technology that is pricing us out of markets and creating high bills for consumers.
John Robertson
The right hon. Gentleman and I have bandied a few comments between ourselves over the years. The simple answer is that I just do not agree with him. I think he is wrong. He should look at the big picture and not just at one side of the equation. There are always two sides to an equation, with an equals sign in the middle. Both sides have to be looked after, otherwise there is an unfair balance. That is what we have at the moment.
The levies make up £112 or 9% of a bill. However, bills have gone up by £300 in the past three years. Energy companies often blame the levies for the increase. An example of that is npower’s patronising propaganda in its “Energy Explained” document of January 2014, which blamed levies and even the public for the increase. Its chief executive, Paul Massara, said:
“The actual unit price of energy in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe—but bills are high because British houses waste so much energy.”
That comes from a company whose executives get a fortune in bonuses. They do all right from their company, but at the end of the day, vulnerable customers cannot afford to pay their bills, let alone install energy efficiency measures.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some good points. Is it not ironic that, despite what the Government say, the levy that faces the biggest reduction is the energy company obligation, which is designed to encourage energy efficiency? We all accept that it needs reform, but is it not tragic that it is the people who lose the most money through energy inefficiency who will lose out if the impact of the energy company obligation is reduced?
John Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will go into that matter in more detail in a moment.
The energy companies always seem to cry wolf. I think that they have cried wolf once too often. We need to have ever more control over the companies. The Minister knows my opinion on splitting the energy companies into generation and retail companies. I believe that is the way forward. That would create more companies and just might create the competition that appears not to be there at the moment.
There is a contradiction in what the chief executive of npower has said, because the company is also calling for cuts to the levies that would help people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. The Government have allowed the energy companies to blame the levies for their own greed and manipulation of the market—I mean the greed of the companies, not of the Government. The Government are unwilling to stand up to the energy company barons. In my opinion, they serve them before our constituents. Instead of challenging the companies on their scare stories about the effect of green levies on bills, they announced that they would cut the energy company obligation and the warm home discount. How do they know what to cut if the levy control framework is not monitoring the policy impacts effectively?
The Government have cut ECO despite the chair of their Fuel Poverty Advisory Group saying:
“It is completely inequitable to attack the only measure that is doing something for the fuel poor in England.”
He said that the Government could face a judicial review if they go ahead with the cuts to ECO because of the statutory commitment to reduce fuel poverty.
The companies have held the Government to ransom over this decision. They have said that they will pass on a £50 cut to consumers and they are putting pressure on the Government by saying that they will raise prices in the months before the election if there is not a second stage to the cuts. Even after the cut to green levies, energy bills rose by an average of more than £60 this winter. It is fortunate that the winter has been so mild; otherwise we might be talking not just about prices, but about the number of people who have died of hypothermia. It is fortunate that temperatures have not been low this winter, and let us hope they do not fall in the short time remaining before the spring.
The problem is not levies, but the broken market. Policy costs are responsible for 15% of the rise since 2010. Every consumer group in this country that deals with energy has complained about the greed of energy companies, and the fact that they have ripped off customers. Energy company greed should be looked at extensively. The people at Ofgem are not bad, but they do not have the teeth to do the job they want to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) may argue that we should get rid of Ofgem. Unless we start to see more from it, perhaps he is right and we should get rid of it and put in its place something that really does the job of looking after not just companies, but the people who use the power they produce.
We need an energy price freeze, but why? Everyone says that that would be terrible, and that everything would fall apart and the energy companies would disappear. That will not happen, and the Minister knows that. There is too much money in this country for the energy companies to disappear. However, we must call a halt, look at what is happening, sit down and talk about what we want to change and why, and put together an energy system so that people can make money and provide energy, and customers can be assured that they are receiving value for money for taxpayers. An 18-month freeze on prices will allow the Government—I hope that they will be a new Labour Government—to sit down and work out what they want to do with their energy policy without worrying about whether they have to fight someone over an energy price rise. At the end of the 18 months, people will know exactly what is going to happen. That policy would be popular and right.
The Government are scrambling around trying to find something different to win support at the general election and if they come up with something better, I am sure those on our Front Bench will support it. However, at the moment, our offer is the best on the table for the general public. The Government are out of touch and it is time they got back in touch.
We are not here to fight the Government. In many ways, the Labour Government had almost exactly the same policies as those on the Front Bench today. We all agree on one thing: energy is important. The only thing we do not agree on is the priority. We prioritise the poor and the vulnerable, but the Government prioritise the companies.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Today is estimates day, and in the past I have made the mistake of talking about the estimates. That was a schoolboy error. Estimates day is rather like “Fight Club”. The first rule of fight club is that members do not talk about it, and we do not talk about estimates on estimates day. It is in fact an occasion to raise issues about energy levies and so on.
I have an issue, and I must preface what I say by disclaiming the expertise that has been shown in the Chamber. I am no expert in the matter. My background in it is limited, but I want to air some big concerns, or at least one big concern—the Government’s ECO scheme, which is paid for from levies and monitored by Ofgem. As I understand it—I repeat that I do not perfectly understand it—it is multi-dimensional and it subsidises insulation, community schemes, and boilers and their replacement. It has two distinct targets: fuel poverty, which needs addressing, and carbon saving, which is a general global imperative.
It has been acknowledged that the ECO scheme has slowed down since the autumn when the debate on energy prices took off, but even prior to that I had concerns about the operation of the scheme as it stands. It depends on an industry superstructure to enable boilers to be replaced and consumers to be provided with what they need. That industry superstructure and the industry in general are in a parlous state. I have been reliably informed by people who ought to know that there has been a collapse in the market and that boilers are not being fitted with the same frequency as previously. There has been a boom and a bust. Not so long ago, there was a huge boom; now there is a substantial bust, as there is with solar panels. There are lay-offs in the trade and providers do not want to engage further. We may be looking at a slower but similar car crash to that in solar. The reasons seems to be relatively straightforward.
The remuneration that the providers hope to get from the energy companies is either plummeting or is extraordinarily fickle and unpredictable so that they cannot make their business work. For a £1 saving in carbon over a lifetime they used to receive 25p, but they now get 8p or less, and sometimes they do not know what they will get. The alternatives are not wholesome. They can fit low-class boilers, probably with inadequate maintenance arrangements, or they can concentrate on houses where carbon savings are greatest: hard-to-heat mansions.
Apparently, hard-to-heat mansions are becoming increasingly attractive. Not so long ago, the Daily Mirror printed a report about a premier league footballer who benefited under the ECO scheme, and there have been reports of people in serious fuel poverty who cannot currently benefit. There is evidence that the big providers do not want to deal too much with the fuel poor. I have seen a letter from British Gas to Sefton council asking it not to send any more referrals because it does not want to deal with fuel poverty at the moment.
My constituency has many Victorian terraces of single occupancy, hard-to-heat accommodation with old, inefficient boilers, and it seems almost impossible to make a commercial case to any provider unless the applicant can make a contribution. However, if they are in fuel poverty, they simply do not have the resources to do so. Fuel poverty seems to be fighting the other target: carbon saving. A genuine case can be made for dealing with hard-to-heat mansions, particularly if they are occupied by pensioners who may be able to qualify under some criteria.
I have had discussions with Ministers at various levels and they are more sanguine than I and the providers are. Will the Minister explain why British Gas writes to Sefton council and why energy companies make representations saying they do not want to engage with fuel poverty now? Will the Government publish up-to-date statistics so that we can see what progress is being made to alleviate fuel poverty? Will they give figures for the number of boilers fitted in fuel poverty homes, and say how close they are to the £540 million target for alleviating fuel poverty? Above all, given that I am not the expert, I would like them to speak to the companies and providers. I know that this is not the Minister’s immediate responsibility, but will he arrange a meeting with providers and assessors to look at the evidence and, if the ministerial team believes that things are going right, explain why, and why the providers think they have a problem.
At the moment, there seems to be some slight evidence of a bunker mentality. The issue was raised on the “You and Yours” radio programme, but the Department did not provide someone to tell its story. It must tell a better story, or own up to a problem and try to fix it because the problem is genuine.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any indication of whether the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport intends to come to the House to make a statement. A letter has just been issued in which the Government now accept many of the amendments that we had tabled to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill on such issues as the watershed, a one-stop shop for problem gamblers, spread betting and financial blocking. This includes adopting many of the measures that we were calling for to protect vulnerable people in relation to fixed odds betting terminals in betting shops. That is a complete turnabout from the Government’s initial position, when they resisted all our amendments. The letter also refers to the Government announcing their position over the weekend. I do not recollect the House sitting over the weekend. I think the most appropriate place for the Government to announce changes in policy is in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wonder whether you have had any notice from the Secretary of State that she intends to come here and explain herself.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I have not received any notification of a statement from the Secretary of State. It is not an uncommon practice for the Government—all Governments—to move amendments in the Lords. The hon. Gentleman’s point is not a point of order. As I understand it, the Bill will have to come back to the Commons, and I am sure that he will then find ways to make the points he has just made. He has got his views on the record.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I want to draw attention to a number of curiosities in relation to the levy control framework and Government levies for underwriting various new, and sometimes not so new, forms of power for the future.
The first curiosity is that the levies are not in the estimates: according to accounting conventions, they cannot be. One of the central things to which the Energy and Climate Change Committee drew attention was the fact that because the current accounting regulations mean that levies cannot be placed within end-of-year accounts or estimates for the Department, some fairly urgent action is needed to bring those issues back under the parliamentary gaze and make them accountable to and discussable by this House.
As we heard from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), the Chair of the Committee of which I am proud to be a member, much work to decarbonise the UK’s energy economy is underpinned by levies on energy bills. The chosen instrument that the Government have introduced to control those levies is the levy control framework, which is itself a very curious beast that was introduced by sudden fiat in the Budget of 2011. It was announced in the additional document to that Budget called “The Plan for Growth” but without, as far as I know, any debate, pre-scrutiny or other examination of its effect as regards the inclusion or exclusion of various levies. Subsequently, without that examination, it has controlled, pretty selectively, DECC’s spending on support for renewable and low-carbon energy.
I say “selectively” because although it was claimed, as the original Treasury paper stated in introducing it, that that the levy control framework
“will include all DECC’s existing or new policies which entail levy-funded spending”,
it does not do anything like that. In effect, it controls selected and nominated levy-funded underwriting for certain activities. It initially controlled the renewables obligation and the feed-in tariff for smaller renewables, and it has controlled the warm home discount, although that has recently disappeared into general taxation. In future, it will control the renewables obligation’s successor, contracts for difference, with continued payments from the renewables obligation after the system switches in March 2017. The RO will not go away; it will continue for a long time after the change has taken place and will continue to control feed-in tariffs for solar and small-scale renewables.
The total controlled expenditure will be some £7.6 billion, in 2011-12 prices, in 2020-21, rising from just over £3 billion in 2013-14. That sounds not just like a lot of money but like a huge increase in money, but we must remember that it is the total that has to underwrite the target of 30% of renewable electricity generation by 2020. In some scenarios published by DECC, it may just about achieve that, but in other unpublished scenarios it may not. The reason it may not is that the expenditure total has to include not only the cost of new entrants each year, as those new entrants come to produce renewable and low-carbon power that contribute towards the target, but the cumulative overhangs of what has already been agreed previously under the renewables obligation or, after 2017, contracts for difference payments, which will run on for 15 years after they have been agreed. In most instances, RO payments will continue for 10 years after they have ceased being issued in 2017. Over the whole period up to 2020, certainly, and even after that, all the payments that have been agreed for any new projects will continue throughout the whole period and will accumulate within the levy-controlled total expenditure.
We do not know how the figure of £7.6 billion for 2020 was arrived at—it was simply announced. Only more recently have estimated figures on the annual margin that will be available for new entrants every year been published. It turns out that those figures will be slightly less per year than is currently available for new entrants each year in terms of new renewables obligations and, subsequently, contracts for difference. I personally feel that given DECC’s figures on how it will achieve a doubling of the deployment of mainly offshore wind by 2020, the aspiration is probably a little heroic.
Another curious aspect of the levy control framework is that it controls the sums involved but not what is actually deployed. In the case of the renewables obligation, it is reasonably possible to forecast what expenditure might be against deployment. Indeed, according to the National Audit Office, DECC has produced pretty accurate figures for this over the several years of the levy control framework so far. However, when contracts for difference are introduced in March 2017, it will be much less easy to do that. That is because the amount of underwriting, and hence levy, that arises from a contract for difference is inherently variable and only predictable in ballpark terms. What a generator gets as a payment is the difference between the agreed amount for the strike price and the reference price, which is the prevailing price of wholesale electricity in any one month. If the price dips, the amount paid increases; if the price rises, the amount paid decreases.
It is certainly conceivable, as the Chairman of the Committee suggested, that in circumstances of a high wholesale electricity price, generators could start paying back money that they have obtained because the reference price is higher than the strike price. It would be interesting to see whether any consideration has been given to how that money coming back might be deployed and whether it would be put towards more renewables investment or disappear into the Treasury; I suspect I know the answer. It is at least a possibility that that could happen over the next period. The point is that the generator gets a known return but the levy payments themselves could vary enormously. If, for example, the Chancellor caps the carbon floor price in 2016, that would probably reduce the price of electricity, albeit by encouraging high-carbon generation. It would, however, increase the payment that generators get from the CfD, possibly quite substantially. Owing to the fact that the amount is capped each year against a small amount of additional headroom for the Department, which then needs to be adjusted over the next year in the Department’s subsequent estimates, room for new entrants could be dramatically squeezed through the payments of larger sums each year. Therefore, as a tool to cap expenditure on levies, the LCF may function, but it cannot underpin a clear level of deployment over time. It deals with one side of the equation but not the other.
The next curiosity of the levy control framework is that it does not really control levies overall. As we saw recently, the only levies that were removed or altered in the so-called green levy review were ones that did not have a control over them at all, or that will be out of the LCF by 2020. As we have heard, the energy companies’ levy-based obligation is exactly in line with the levy control framework. What was not within it was eviscerated, with calamitous consequences for local authority and housing association solid wall and hard-to-treat home schemes. The warm home discount has gone into being funded by general taxation.
The levy control framework is supposed to control levies that are defined by the Office for National Statistics as tax and spend—that was in the original Treasury document that set out the LCF. In fact, it is defined by the ONS as putative tax and spend. Although no money goes into the Exchequer, the effect on the consumer is as if a tax had been levied, but with no control over it. As I have underlined, that was the stated intention of the LCF in the document that introduced it.
The original levies preceding the levy control framework were introduced precisely because they were off the books and would not count against spending totals. However, the LCF effectively makes them count again, dependent on the ONS definition. One might say that a policy that levies charges on consumers because it does not count, but is then controlled through a mechanism that makes it count, is rather a circular policy. In the long run, it might better be replaced by a policy that levies a tax on companies and people’s wealth, and then allocates that to underwrite the desired deployment to plant—perhaps that points out something that must not be said.
The levies counted in the levy control framework will be, as the original document states, based on ONS independent definitions. However, the ONS barely got round to classifying previous levies—the community energy savings programme and the carbon emissions reduction target—before the LCF came in. Indeed, it classified those as putative tax and spend, but only after they had come to an end. The Treasury then had to predict what the ONS might do if it classified some newer levies to set up the LCF.
One could say that the choice of what was in or out when the levy control framework came about has essentially been a political and not a statistical decision, underlined perhaps by the curious fact of two enormous levies. One of those is the energy company obligation, which could perhaps now come to £2.6 billion over four years. Most significantly, coming down the road, we ought to know the capacity market payment system, which is potentially £1 billion a year on average until 2020. Those are levies on customers’ bills to persuade energy companies to build gas-fired power stations and make them available for the provision of power, not to pay them for providing power. If they then provide power, having made themselves available and got a levy as a subsidy, they will be paid again. That is definitely coming down the road—a huge levy increase outside the LCF. Those are clearly levies and will turn up on customers’ bills. Probably, if included, they could double the control total.
The ONS has not yet got round to considering whether ECO should be counted in, and as far as I am aware—probably for quite prudent reasons—it has not gone anywhere near capacity payments. In any event, DECC is still figuring out how to manage and control such matters, as well as how to manage and control the energy demand reduction side of capacity market payments should they be included in the energy auctions that, as I have mentioned, will be coming down the road.
Some levies have, of course, already gone down the taxation route. The renewable heat initiative was to have been a levy but it is now funded from general taxation. The warm home discount has recently gone from being a levy to being funded by general taxation, and—still to come—the money to support carbon capture and storage has shrunk to £1 billion and is also funded from general taxation, with no clarification as to whether subsequent CCS gets a CfD, and will eventually be in the LCF. Perhaps it will get capacity payments that are levied but not in the LCF, or perhaps it will just get support from tax. There is, therefore, no consistency about what is controlled and what is not, and apparently no clarity on the horizon.
We then come to the next curiosity of the system. Apparently, including estimates and outcomes of levy controlled expenditure—it never really arises as solid tax in and solid expenditure out—cannot, as I have emphasised, safely be put in departmental estimates or end-of-year accounts. Since 2012, no levy expenditure in accounts or estimates has been put forward by the Department. That brings us back to where we started. The LCF was sprung into being without debate or scrutiny from this House. We do not know what goes into the figures in the framework or whether the expenditure undertaken is value for money, because none of the workings is in the accounts and estimates. We do not even know what relationship there is between the policy objectives of each levy and their likely realisation. It seems that the agreed policy outcome of the deployment of renewables has possibly been seriously compromised by the introduction of the LCF, but we do not know because nothing is there to assist with finding out.
We know that ECO will now not even remotely reach its suggested policy target of 180,000 hard-to-treat home treatments by 2015, but we have not had a chance to discuss or debate either the initial policy or its revisions. The whole question of levies lies, it seems, outside the policy and scrutiny process. Both the NAO and the Energy and Climate Change Committee found that to be highly unsatisfactory, and suggested imperative remedies. In a letter to DECC, and in its most recent report on the LCF, the Committee suggested:
“There should be a single annual report covering all the DECC levy-funded schemes along with other Government initiatives which affect energy bills but fall outside of the Levy Control Framework,”
in the way I have illustrated. It said that that report should contain:
“Future plans, and comparisons of agreed budgets and final spend (outturn) for each funding stream.”
It should have:
“Easily identifiable “costs per customer” for each scheme on a consistent basis…including the impact that government decisions have upon requirements over time.”
and should contain:
“Measurable outcomes achieved through spending, including as a minimum the progress made against carbon targets and…other specified objectives of the schemes, and the impacts on consumers.”
That should certainly include
“an appraisal of the relationship of the LCF to its overall policy targets.”
I heartily endorse those recommendations, because at the very least they will bring the rationale and its relationship to policy objectives set elsewhere in Government under the purview of this House, so that that can be properly appraised. That, and the value for money or otherwise achieved by the process, can be properly appraised and assessed by this House, both at estimate time and at outturn time.
I would go further and reflect on the last line of the Select Committee recommendation. It is clearly deeply unsatisfactory that some levies are in a control framework, some are outside and some have, for purposes of expediency, been placed into general taxation. There should be consistent treatment for all. If we are not to go to a system that, ultimately, is better all round, but which I know causes problems with our odd British method of accounting for public expenditure that is at odds with how most other European countries do it—namely, by raising taxes openly and allocating support openly on the basis of what has been raised—then at least levies across the board should be treated in the same way. After all, they all end up in the same place—on the customer’s bill—and the overall positive effect of the levies, which in the longer term are certainly likely to be beneficial to those bills, can be properly appraised and prioritised.
As matters stand, we are essentially presenting a series of obscurely worked out and obscurely justified schemes as, somehow, a major and coherent policy driver. They most certainly are not. Fundamentally, the levy mechanisms should relate to the policy goals they are supposed to underwrite. What are the best value and most efficient mechanisms that will take us where we want to go on policies, once they have been decided? As it stands, the levy control framework is a very long way from doing that.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am sure we can all agree that delivering an energy policy that guarantees security of supply at prices businesses and people can afford is an essential and challenging task, especially after years of procrastination under the previous Government. This Government’s energy policy, based on a mixture of generating capabilities, is vital to our national security. The more energy we can produce on our own shores the better. The current situation unfolding in Ukraine is very worrying in many ways, but it is a timely reminder of the risks of relying on imported gas.
The Government are right to back renewable energy. It is particularly important to look at marine renewable and geothermal. As a Member of Parliament representing the south-west of England, hon. Members would expect me to say that. I was absolutely delighted when the Government set up the South West Marine Energy Park. I can perhaps give the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) some of the evidence he was asking for, on the positive impact of the Government’s policies on renewable energy, from my experience in my constituency.
As a result of the announcement before Christmas of the strike prices for renewable energy, we have seen a huge increase in interest from overseas investors into marine renewable energy in my constituency. We are the home of the Falmouth bay test site, the FaBTest site, which is a very innovative partnership between the university of Exeter, the Falmouth Harbour commissioners and local businesses. It is an excellent site to pilot and test marine renewables which enables developers to understand how much energy can be created and the economics of it, which can then be scaled up to fully deployed devices on the wave hub. We have seen investment already, from Scandinavian countries, to build new devices that are currently being deployed, with a great pipeline to come. It is attracting not only investment but a great deal of new, high-quality engineering jobs to my constituency, all of which is to be welcomed.
Dr Whitehead
I underline the hon. Lady’s point that wave, tidal and other new forms of energy are beginning to secure a lot of investment, and invite her to attend the all-party group on renewable and sustainable energy meeting tomorrow on precisely that topic. We would be delighted to see her there.
Sarah Newton
I welcome any opportunity to draw attention to the fantastic and innovative work of companies in my constituency to create wealth, prosperity and new jobs, so if I can find time in my diary I will certainly come along.
I have seen evidence of the substantial impact of the new strike prices for renewable energy in the short period since they have been announced. Among all this good news, however, there are a few issues I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh), who is no longer in his place, made some very good points on the impact of the changes to ECO announced in the autumn statement. The reduction of people’s energy bills by about £30 to £35, as a result of those changes, has been welcomed by households across my constituency and, I am sure, across all hon. Members’ constituencies. However, some of the measures—particularly the reduction in the carbon emissions target for hard-to-treat homes by a third and the extension of measures to include cheaper options such as loft and cavity wall insulation—have had an impact on off-grid customers living in fuel poverty in my constituency, and have made the introduction of soluble insulation to low-income households virtually impossible.
Why is that important? The changes are having a disproportionate effect on constituencies in rural areas such as mine, where 35% of homes have solid walls compared with 22% nationally, and 48% of households are living off the gas grid compared with just under 15% across the country. As we all know—we have debated it many times in this House—people living off the gas grid pay much higher energy bills than those who are on the grid. Under the Hills definition of fuel poverty, that affects about 10% of households in my constituency, and that figure will be replicated across other rural areas. The Minister has taken great care to listen to MPs representing areas such as mine, and has taken real steps to try to tackle fuel poverty in off-grid households. Will he consider taking two further steps that could have an important impact?
The Minister created the off-grid ministerial round table, which is already proving to be a very valuable body that has made improvements for the group of people concerned. At the next meeting in May, I would very much like him to consider evidence from members of that round table, such as Community Energy Plus in my constituency, on the impact of the ECO changes on its ability to tackle fuel poverty in off-grid households. There might be some very simple tweaks, without extra cost, that could be made to the programme to enable us to help people who are particularly hard hit by the changes.
Secondly, will the Minister consider inviting the head of Public Health England to join the round table? Public Health England has rightly identified the reduction of fuel poverty as an essential health outcome. As we all know, living in cold homes exacerbates existing health conditions. It can often lead to unplanned emergency admissions to hospital and lead to a delay in people going back to their homes, because of the detrimental impact of allowing them to move back home. We live with the blight of excess winter deaths. The national health service has ring-fenced budgets, as do public health bodies and local authorities, and I think that they have an important role to play in driving down fuel poverty. Community Energy Plus in my constituency has been working with health officials and with me to develop an evidence base and a toolkit that will enable public health commissioners to fund insulation and other measures that would allow people to live in warmer homes. It would be excellent if work of that kind could be shared at the round table, and if Public Health England took up the challenge to provide an evidence base that would enable people working on the energy company obligation and on improving the energy efficiency of homes to work alongside health officials around the country in driving down fuel poverty.
I welcome the Government’s approach to energy policy and to tackling fuel poverty. I hope that the Minister will consider the simple steps that I have described, because I think that they could make a positive difference to the health and well-being of my constituents and others throughout the country.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
We have many debates on the cost of energy to consumers, because the issue is vitally important, especially at this difficult time. The so-called green levies are often identified in the press, and sometimes in the House, as the cause of rising energy bills, but we cannot escape the fact that they are there for a reason. Their purpose is to provide our energy infrastructure for the future, and to ensure that money is invested to promote renewables and take carbon out of the energy system. Only in that way can we reduce energy bills and ensure that they stay low.
Last week the Prime Minister reaffirmed his view that man-made climate change is the most serious problem that affects us all, and it was good to hear that. Let us hope that this time he really means what he says, and will not move on as soon as he has hugged the next husky.
There are still people in the House of Commons, in the other place and outside who deny the reality of climate change in the face of mounting scientific evidence and, indeed, the evidence of our own eyes. The impact of climate change is variable, but it is also undoubtedly dramatic and dangerous. We cannot point to one weather event and say that it is a direct result of climate change, but we can see the pattern that is developing, and acknowledge that our climate is changing. Most of us agree on those points, but if we are to challenge the problem, we must obtain the money and take the measures that are necessary.
We must be brutally honest: if we leave the matter purely to the market, it is highly unlikely that there will be investment in a green economy and carbon-free energy. In the current market conditions, the cheapest form of energy is probably coal. Indeed, more coal is being burned for energy than has been the case for quite some time. However, we also face increasing energy demands, and the combination of the two could spell disaster for our climate. We need only think of the massive smog cloud that engulfed Beijing last week, when even indoors the pollution levels were above World Health Organisation safety levels. To be fair, the Chinese are now coming round to investing in greener energy in order to tackle their problems, but that remains a warning of what we could face if we do not act to tackle our problems. We have done it before: city smogs here became a thing of the past because of regulation, in particular the introduction of the Clean Air Acts.
Totally free markets will not take us where we need to go, so the Government must continue their efforts to ensure that there is real action on tackling climate change and the greening of our energy system. An enormous amount of money is needed for that project, but it should not be seen purely as costs; it should also be seen as investment. As I said earlier to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), I was rather concerned about his description of offshore wind farms and the contracts for difference that were needed for them. Having sat through the debates on the Energy Bill and heard what was said about CfDs, I understood that they were variable so that an extra boost could be given to new, untried technologies that needed a lift in order to take off, and so that the subsidy given to established technologies could be reduced. That struck me as perfectly reasonable, because the huge cost of offshore energy will undoubtedly require that extra boost. I would caution against considering alternatives to it just because it is expensive; it has reduced the need for onshore energy.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), renewables are making a great difference to local economies throughout the country. They are driving the development of many parts of the new economy. Renewable energy is now a significant part of Scotland’s economy: 11,695 people are in full-time employment in the industry, an increase of 5% over the last year, and the industry is confident that it will continue to expand and employ more people. The latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that in 2012 renewables accounted for 40.3% of gross electricity consumption in Scotland—7.5% more than in 2011—and for nearly 30% of Scotland’s total, a record proportion.
In my constituency, there are plans for substantial offshore wind arrays that have the capacity not only to generate huge amounts of renewable energy, but to push investment opportunities and new jobs. However, that will happen only if the CfDs are there to make it happen. My area used to have huge engineering works that went in the dreadful recession of the 1980s, but engineering survived in niche businesses and we are now seeing a real revival in businesses associated with the oil and gas industry—which is vital to the north-east of Scotland and where businesses such as GE Oil and Gas in Montrose are expanding—and many more smaller firms that are part of the oil and gas supply chain and increasingly the renewable supply chain as well. That is where much of the future development will come from.
Apprenticeships are growing, giving real opportunities for youngsters in my area to get a good long-term career, and the skills are transferable into the new renewable industries, giving continuity and a real future in sustainable jobs.
There are problems in the way that electricity market reform has been introduced, however. There have been delays, which have caused concern about investment. Some of the proposed developments have not come to fruition because of the changes to EMR, particularly in respect of onshore wind farms. SSE pulled out of two protected developments.
Much of what has been done has been possible only because of the renewable obligation. I accept that has put some costs on our energy bills, but it has also allowed us to fund programmes that have led to greater efforts to insulate homes, reducing energy use and future bills for consumers.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk mentioned the effect of nuclear—when debating with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I think. I was interested in what he said about almost off-the-peg stations coming from China. I have some dubiety about the future of nuclear, it must be said, and my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) and I have debated that on many occasions. The cost of Hinkley Point is of interest to me, and interests in the European Union seem to be looking slightly askance at that. It is worth noting that the cost of the subsidy to Hinkley Point alone is over four times the total cost of the renewables obligation across the whole of the UK during its first 10 years in operation. That puts into perspective the amount of money that is involved. It is also worth noting that I saw a story earlier this week that a plan for a similar design in Finland which is already vastly over-budget and way behind schedule has now been put back for several more years. We really have to wonder just what contribution nuclear will make to energy in the foreseeable future. It seems to me this contract is ruinously expensive and will impact adversely on energy bills throughout the country.
We have to ask whether energy bills are now too high, however. Unfortunately, I think that is true, but it cannot be laid at the door of the so-called green levies. Let us look at the breakdown of costs in our energy bills as set out in the Commons Library note “Components of an energy bill”. It sets out that environmental and social levies amount to between 8% and 10% of the typical domestic dual-fuel energy bill. That is the proportion before the changes announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement, which, as has been said, removed the funding of the warm home discount from energy bills and should have reduced the proportion further.
Figures produced by the Department of Energy and Climate Change break things down further, and that leads to an estimate that only 2% of the average dual-fuel bill is due to the renewables obligation, which up until now is what has supported large-scale renewable generation, feed-in tariffs and small-scale renewables. That amounts to some £30 a year on the mythical average bill.
I do not deny that for hard-pressed families even such a sum is significant. However, it is not the main driver for increasing energy prices. That is the wholesale energy costs, which according to DECC’s own figures account for between 46% and 48% of the bill. These costs are susceptible to many outside forces, of course. Prices are currently rising quite sharply with the increasing tension in Ukraine as Russia is a major supplier of energy, and in particular of gas to Europe.
I was also interested in the point the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made about CfDs and gas prices. The idea behind that, as I understand it, was that we would have a definite price for gas. That rising cost is the main driver for energy bills so, in theory at least, if we have a set cost under CfDs for that gas, it should prevent the spikes we have seen in the past and give the consumer, as well as the company, some certainty about what they are going to pay, although nothing in this world is certain.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I am just trying to get this clear. The hon. Gentleman mentions figures of about 8% to 10%, reducing to 2% for renewables, with 46% as the cost of the energy. Is the rest tax? What is the tax percentage in the average energy bill in the hon. Gentleman’s example?
Mr Weir
It is not my example; I refer the hon. Gentleman to the House of Commons Library note on this subject, which sets out clearly the various elements, as I do not have it with me today. Obviously, energy companies will make a profit, and part of the taxation on energy bills is 5% VAT. The point about the 8% and the 2% is that only 2% of the bill is directly relatable to the renewables obligation. The differences between the two are the social obligations—the insulation costs and the other costs for creating warmer homes and reducing future energy bills.
It will be interesting to see how these changes feed into energy costs. If, as is claimed, the major companies are operating a hedging strategy for gas that forces them to buy well in advance, there should be little immediate effect—I am referring to the current rise in prices because of what is happening in Crimea. But those who buy the bulk of their supplies on the spot market may well see an immediate impact. It will be interesting to see whether there is a turnaround in who has the higher energy prices as a result of that.
A further major element in bills is the network costs charged to energy suppliers, which, according to the note, make up 20% to 23% of the costs. I have spoken on that issue many times in this House, as well as on the unfairness of the costs, which discriminate against generators, particularly renewable energy generators in the north of Scotland compared with major generators in the south. The regulator, Ofgem, has been looking into this matter, in a seemingly endless investigation, Project TransmiT, which I understand has been put back yet again to a possible introduction in April of next year. There must be more action and a fairer system of transmission reduces the costs faced by renewable energy. That would have a positive impact on bills by reducing the cost to the consumer.
All that having been said, we do need to look at the balance between investment and the price paid by consumers. I support the idea that some of the costs that have been imposed upon consumers are taken off bills and put on general taxation, specifically those relating to providing energy efficiency and insulation measures. It is not often I agree with the Minister, but that was correct.
Mr Weir
The hon. Gentleman need not worry too much.
Under the green deal, many measures under the energy company obligation are left to the energy companies to set up and administer, but that is not working. I have raised concerns about aspects of the specific schemes, but the overriding fact is that there is now a complete lack of trust in the energy companies and having them approach people offering such schemes will not achieve the take-up we need. Suspicion alone will stop many people taking up what could be a good scheme. We should be made to examine how we deliver these things, because if we were to have a more focused scheme, we could do more, for example, in hard-to-heat homes in the areas mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth, by making sure that these specific issues are tackled.
I have raised other issues relating to the ECO, one of which may interest the hon. Lady, who, like me has many constituents who are off the gas grid: many energy companies will not have replacement boilers for off-gas-grid appliances. I have written to all the major companies to press them on the issue. I have raised it at ministerial round-table meetings—I am sure that the Minister is fed up with hearing about it—and in the House, but the situation remains. We really need action on such areas. We were told by Ministers that the ECO was technology-neutral, but that is clearly not so for off-grid consumers.
The Government’s usual mantra of energy efficiency and switching simply does not wash with those who are struggling to pay their bills. The savings on offer would barely scratch the surface of the problem. All too often, energy companies seem to be carrying out a follow-my-lead strategy on price rises. If someone switches when their company raises prices, they may just be delaying their own price rise until the next company makes its move. It is not surprising that cynicism has taken hold among the general public. We must make it clear to our constituents that there is no silver bullet to solve the problem of energy prices. Yes, we need to look closely at how the energy companies operate, which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West has talked about on many occasions. In fact, that is one of the things on which we agree.
We need transparency in the system to see not only how the companies make their money but the inequalities. In the Energy Act 2013, the Government sought to take powers to implement the Prime Minister’s promise to put everyone on the lowest tariff, but, as I have said many times, the Act does not seem to have that effect. What it does is to require the energy companies to facilitate the switch, but the offer to do that may well not be obvious to many people who receive a mass of paper through their doors from the energy companies. There must be a much more proactive effort to put people on to the lowest tariff. It also seems that, under this scheme, it is only the lowest tariff operated within the type of contract the person already has. As I have said before, that is fine if someone is on a direct debit tariff, but if they are on a prepayment meter, for example, they will still be stuck on a higher tariff, and there is little being done to help those people.
If we are to explain clearly what the costs of energy are and to do what we can to reduce energy bills, we need to ensure that everyone is on the lowest possible bill. We need to get away from the fact that companies can claim that bills are the result of green levies or other levies, when clearly that is not the case.
I have spoken a great deal about prepayment meters before, and I will not do so again any great length again. However, I will just say that the citizens advice bureau in Scotland cites the case of a single parent with two children. The mother currently has to lose £7 to arrears every time she puts £10 in the meter. The £3 remaining is entirely insufficient to heat her home. Such things cannot be allowed to continue if we are serious about bringing the public on board. They must understand that we are serious about not only ensuring that the infrastructure is in place and that we move towards green energy, but about doing what we can to reduce energy bills.
I have also spoken before about the fact that some people who have prepayment meters or who are in arrears often do not have bank accounts. The banks are not interested in the low-income customers. Indeed many of them have moved out of areas such as the rural parts of my constituency.
The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth mentioned off-grid customers, so I will give another plug for my favourite campaign for earlier winter fuel allowances for elderly people who are off the gas grid. I am pleased to see that the Labour party has now adopted that as policy. I have been campaigning for it for some time, and I am glad to have its support for that policy. It is interesting to note that both major parties have supported that at one time or another. Strangely enough, they have done so when they have been in opposition, not in government—call me a cynic, but there we go. We will wait and see.
All too often when we debate energy, we focus on electricity consumers. We must look at the whole system, and I am glad that we have the opportunity to do so today. I think that I have spoken for long enough, and I will end by saying that this is a good opportunity to make the point that we should not just look at green levies. There is a reason we have this ongoing system: to decarbonise our energy and ensure that bills stay low in future.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), particularly as he finished by talking about off-grid customers, and I wholly concur with his comments. I represent a number of off-grid communities, and all the problems highlighted by other hon. Members obviously affect my constituency.
We have had two debates in which fossil fuels have, perhaps for understandable reasons, come in for a bit of a bashing, but whenever we debate them, I like to remind the House that many thousands of my constituents work in the coal and gas and the offshore oil and gas industries. This is still an important sector of the economy, and they play a valuable role, whether by working at coal-fired power stations, at Kellingley or Hatfield pits in my constituency, or offshore.
Throughout this debate we have witnessed the flogging of a dead horse: the energy price freeze—an idea that has been roundly rubbished, including by the public. What would happen in such a situation is clear: prices would go up before a freeze, and they would go up again after a freeze. The public have not been conned on that one. Many of my constituents contacted me when that policy was announced, and they had figured it out for themselves; they needed no assistance from me or my party to do so.
It was interesting to hear about ECO. A good project is going on in my constituency, where funding from the Dragonby wind farm has been used to support ECO funding to put energy efficiency measures into the small community of Dragonby, not too far from Scunthorpe. I see my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), here. The project is proving effective, and I will be on site next week, as the next phase of construction takes off .
I want to focus most of my comments—this will probably not surprise the Minister—on Eggborough power station, which is in the constituency of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), but is a big employer in my constituency. I can see from my front room Drax and Eggborough power stations. If I go upstairs, I can see Ferrybridge power station. Powers stations are something that we live with locally and something that we love locally, not least because of the large number of local people employed in them.
Obviously, there is a massive black cloud over Eggborough, which is one of the UK’s largest coal power stations, producing between 2% and 4% of the UK’s capacity, depending on whose figures are believed. But whether the figure is 2% or 4%, given that Ofgem predicts an energy margin of as low as 2% by 2015, Eggborough is incredibly important to generation. Sadly, however, EU environmental regulations and the carbon floor price mean that Eggborough will be forced to convert to biomass or face closure. Indeed, I have been concerned about the carbon floor price from the beginning. That is why I voted against it, along with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and, indeed, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe. As ever, north Lincolnshire has been united on this issue, because of the large number of important carbon-intensive industries on the south Humber bank.
Eggborough has been working on a £750 million conversion project that would have started on 6 January and been the UK’s largest infrastructure project in quarter 1 of this year. That investment would have secured 800 jobs, many of them in my constituency, and created even more jobs further down the supply chain. That is on hold. For the past couple of years, Eggborough and local MPs have had positive policy signals from the Department of Energy and Climate Change that conversion to biomass would be supported through the final investment decision enabling process. We are pleased as local Members of Parliament that Drax has been secured through that process, but all the signs were that a rapid conversion to biomass at Eggborough would be supported, not least to sustain that important generating capacity on the grid as well as to meet our renewable targets. This was a shovel-ready project, as I have said, with £750 million of inward foreign investment already in place. The final decision was dependent on the FID enabling process. Several drafts of the documentation were produced, and by the third and final draft something seems to have changed in the selection criteria. Just a few weeks before the final announcement applicants were informed of the change and, as a result, Eggborough was excluded.
Michael Fallon
May I make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend, probably for the nth time, that the selection criteria were not changed? It was always clear, in each of the updates on the FID enabling process from the beginning of last year onwards, that the budget might have to be constrained if there were more applications for biomass conversion than the budget could accommodate. I am delighted that we could accommodate, through immediate selection, the biomass conversion plant to which he has referred at Drax.
Andrew Percy
I thank the Minister for that, but it is not a situation or an explanation that Eggborough, others involved in the debate or I accept. Yes, I grant it to the Minister that it was clear in the initial documentation that there were a range of selection criteria. That was mentioned in passing in the first draft. By the third and final draft it appears to have become an overriding consideration and criterion. That is what we believe has changed. If that was not the case, why were positive messages given to Eggborough throughout the process? It would have been clear at the beginning that Drax and Eggborough could not both have been funded, given the scale and size of the Drax conversion and the budget. Later, the range of technologies seems to have become the overriding criterion, which is why other local Members of Parliament and I have sought to clarify what happened and are concerned for our constituents who work in this important power station.
As for the impact of the change, Members of the other place and I have recently tabled parliamentary questions to demonstrate that the Government have made no assessment of the impact of the change in policy, nor of the impact on bills. When I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) shouted at me that it was all about how cost-effective this was. Well, we do not know the cost of losing this generating capacity. Eggborough has announced that it will be forced to close unit 2, which provides about 1% of generating capacity, in September this year. According to the most recent information available, the management at Eggborough believe that the plant will no longer supply energy to the grid at all beyond 2015.
There is a crunch coming in 2015, perhaps as low as 2% of capacity, and here we are, about to take off 2% to 4% of generating capacity. The appropriate notices have been issued to National Grid, Ofgem and DECC. The Government may not have made an assessment of the impact on bills, but others have. The loss of that capacity could result in a £38 rise in consumer electricity prices, with £25 due to capacity crunch forcing up the wholesale price, and an estimated £13 of additional cost to decarbonise using technologies that are more costly than biomass conversion.
As I said in the meeting with the Minister and one of his officials, we potentially face a situation in which 800 people who are currently gainfully employed will be sitting at home, having been fired, paying increased bills for a form of generation that is 50% more expensive than the form that they were sacked from generating. To me, and to my constituents, that seems completely and utterly barking mad. It must not be allowed to happen.
We know full well that the process was changed—recalibrated perhaps—over a range of technologies, which seems to have become the overriding factor. There are technologies, largely offshore wind, that have come out ahead of Eggborough, even though they have no finance behind them and do not have planning permission in place, compared with a shovel-ready project that was ready to go.
The figure of £38 for the addition to bills might be disputed, but we have received no answers to our parliamentary questions that show what the impact would be. Perhaps it is worth delving into that in more detail. The £38 is based on the fact that annual wholesale consumption in the UK energy market is 360 TWh. If wholesale prices rise by 10% due to the supply crunch, that would add £5 per megawatt to the wholesale market, which equates to about £1.8 billion per annum. About a third of the market is for domestic households, so that is £600 million between 24 million domestic customers, which works out at £25 on domestic bills. Filling the 4% capacity gap, or maybe the 2%—the figures are disputed—with the more costly renewable technology will result in an additional £13, based on a total cost of £3.4 billion over the life of the project.
It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this position. I implore the Minister and the Government to listen to our pleas on the matter. Eggborough is a major employer. The conversion project would secure 800 jobs, and potentially thousands more. The money is there, it is shovel-ready and the investment is in place. The fact that the project is losing out to others that do not even have finance or planning permission in place simply cannot be right. In fairness to the Department, I understand the desire to have a range of technologies, but we argue that that is what the contracts for difference regime is for. The projects that would replace Eggborough would not be on stream until 2019-20. There is another regime for them, but there is not for Eggborough. The FID enabling regime is it for Eggborough: it is the end. We really need action on this, perhaps through the Secretary of State using his reserve powers. If the regime is not right, as the Minister has consistently told us, let us look at the Secretary of State’s reserve powers, particularly those relating to the impact on generating capacity.
If this project does not go ahead, we have to be clear that we will be replacing it with a much more expensive form of technology. I support the development of our offshore wind sector through a different regime, and locally we have all been united—the Opposition Whip, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe, is nodding in agreement—in wanting to see the Humber develop as an offshore wind centre. We believe that we can do both. We should aim to do both, not only because of the number of jobs at stake, but because of the implications for consumers and how much they would be hit in the pocket. I hope that the Minister will listen again to our pleas on this subject. It is important not only locally, but from a national perspective.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Over the past three months, I have repeatedly raised my concerns about the impact that the Government’s panicked changes to the energy company obligation are having in my constituency, and I make no apology for doing so again today. As we have already heard, the energy company obligation is not covered by the levy control framework, even though the framework’s stated purpose is to cap the cost of levy-funded schemes and ensure that the Department of Energy and Climate Change achieves its fuel poverty, energy and climate change goals in a way consistent with economic recovery and minimising the impact on consumer bills.
The Government claim to be making changes to the ECO precisely because they are concerned about the impact on energy bills. My worry is that they seem to be ignoring the devastating effect of the changes to the literally thousands of my constituents who live in cold, solid-wall homes, which are expensive to heat. The hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Angus (Mr Weir) spoke about the impact on their constituents in off-grid and rural locations. I want to talk about solid-wall properties in urban settings.
Nottingham’s Greener HousiNG scheme is a partnership between our social landlord Nottingham City Homes, experienced insulation contractor VolkerLaser, local energy efficiency charity Nottingham Energy Partnership, and local people. The scheme offered up to 4,500 households in Clifton in my constituency the opportunity to save hundreds of pounds a year on their energy bills, enjoy warmer homes and contribute to national targets for cutting carbon emissions.
The scheme offered external wall insulation at an affordable, fixed price, with residents paying a contribution of between £1,000 and £1,300. The remainder of the cost was provided by funding from British Gas under its energy company obligation. Our ECO-funded scheme was to be delivered in two phases, commencing in September last year and finishing in March 2015. It was planned that the insulation works would be rolled out street by street across the Clifton housing estate to council properties and privately owned homes alike.
The launch of phase 1 of the scheme in the north of Clifton in early September was received with real enthusiasm, and within weeks hundreds of residents had signed up. Clifton is a close-knit community. Built on green fields by the council in the early 1950s to address post-war Nottingham’s need for homes, the estate is a popular place to live and raise a family. Three quarters of the homes are now privately owned, as long-term residents have exercised their right to buy. Many of the original residents still live there, and often their children and grandchildren are nearby, so word about the scheme soon got round.
When residents saw how good the insulation looked and heard about the difference it made to both bills and comfort, they started to get in touch from across the whole of the estate even though the publicity had only gone out in the phase 1 area. In total, there were about 330 council homes and a potential 1,100 private homes in phase 1 and a further 900 council homes and about 2,500 private homes in phase 2. By the end of November, more than 90% of council tenants had agreed to have the work done and there was 65% take-up among the private sector properties, with 729 private residents or landlords having signed up and paid their contribution towards getting the work done. A further 352 private owners had signed up and paid from the phase 2 area of Clifton South. Dozens of the owner-occupiers had also spent thousands of pounds installing new double-glazed windows or other preparatory work to maximise the benefits to their homes once the insulation was applied. In many cases, people had spent their savings or borrowed money to fund that work.
On 1 December, I was in Clifton chatting to residents on Farnborough road and Sturgeon avenue, some of the first streets where work had begun as part of the scheme. The feedback was incredible: people told me that their homes were warm for the first time ever. They were saving money. Many people on the estate are on low incomes so use prepayment cards to manage their gas and electricity bills. They immediately saw a difference in their household budgets and were really proud of the improved appearance of their homes and the neighbourhood. People waiting for the work told me how much they were looking forward to it starting. Some even told me what colour they had chosen for the render.
It was all going so well, but the very next day the Energy Secretary came to the House and announced a panicked change to the energy company obligation—a levy that was introduced by his Government and which underpinned Clifton’s Greener HousiNG scheme. He was under pressure: the big energy companies, in turn, were announcing price rises of up to 10%. He had no policy to counter Labour’s popular promise to freeze prices until 2017 and reform the energy sector. However, rather than take on the big six and tackle their overcharging, he gave in to them, did exactly what they wanted and announced that he was going to cut the ECO—a Government levy that makes up about 3.5% of the typical annual energy bill.
It seemed obvious to me that that change would put my constituents’ insulation scheme at risk. I voiced my fears and asked the Energy Secretary to guarantee to protect our scheme and its fuel-poor residents in hard-to-treat homes. He told me that as a Nottingham lad who had visited our city to see some of its successful insulation work, he agreed with me and went on to say:
“We must ensure that communities around the country are benefiting”.—[Official Report, 2 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 633.]
He also said that he was happy to look at the case. Following that reassuring reply, I wrote to him reiterating my concerns. I am sorry to say that I have yet to receive a reply to my letter.
At the autumn statement on 5 December I tried again. The Chancellor dismissed the concerns of Clifton residents, including my 85-year-old constituent Ennis Peck, whose home may no longer be insulated under the scheme, telling me that energy bills would come down by £50. Of course, energy bills went up in January by an average of £60 and Ennis and many other constituents now stand to lose out both on warmer homes and on savings of £300 to £400 a year on their bills.
Our worst fears were confirmed on 8 January when British Gas gave 90 days’ notice that it was terminating its involvement in the Greener HousiNG scheme. It said:
“In light of the Government’s proposed changes to the ECO, it was necessary for us to review our current ECO contracts. These changes mean we can no longer fund some projects and unfortunately this is the case with our planned programme with VolkerLaser and Nottingham City Homes.”
Therefore, as a direct result of the Energy Secretary’s policy shift, thousands of my constituents stand to lose out.
Partners in the scheme are doing all they can to complete as much of the planned insulation work as possible for those who had signed up and paid their contribution, but the 9 April deadline is fast approaching. Although we hope that more than 1,000 homes in Clifton will be better insulated next winter, a further 3,000 Clifton families will be left in the cold. More than 20,000 households in solid-wall homes across Lenton Abbey, Wollaton Park, Aspley and other parts of Nottingham, who had hoped to benefit from the roll-out of the levy-funded Greener HousiNG scheme to their areas, are in a similar position.
Hundreds of local people employed to carry out the assessments and organise and install the insulation find that their jobs are gone or at risk, including eight new apprentices. A further 12 local unemployed young people who were due to start year-long apprenticeships leading to national vocational qualifications have been left in limbo. Their opportunity for green jobs in what should be a growth industry has been snatched away.
I want to the give the last word about the impact of the Government’s green levy changes to my Clifton constituents. Their stories convey more powerfully than I ever could why Ministers have dealt with changes to levies on energy bills in the wrong way. Mr and Mrs Rennie of Bainton grove told me:
“We signed up for the insulation last November. Due to lack of funds we chose the loan from the Credit Union to fund it. As advised by Nottingham Energy Partnership we undertook the replacement of our drainage pipes/guttering/soffits and fascias. We also had our rotten back door removed and a window put in place. We had the work done in December because we were told it would be January when the insulation work would start. The builder left the adequate gap in the fascia boards so the insulation would just fit in. The replacement wall beneath the new window was not rendered because it would all be covered by the insulation. We spent the last of our savings having this work done.
The main reason for us having the insulation is the damp which is especially bad in the front facing rooms of our house…We have water running down our walls, black mould growing, the paint bubbles off the walls. As well as this looking cosmetically bad it is not good for my wife’s health. Marie has multiple sclerosis and it’s important to keep warm and comfortable due to temperature sensitivity.
We are deeply upset and angry about this situation. As the weeks go by we are becoming more and more worried which is adversely affecting my wife’s health. She does not need this added stress!
If we do not get the insulation we have spent two thousand pounds we really could have done without…What do we do now? Please help us”.
The importance of the scheme for those with health problems is a recurring theme in letters from my constituents of all ages, but older and disabled residents are of course particularly susceptible to the cold. A constituent on Swansdowne drive wrote that
“we were hoping for a lot cheaper fuel bills and to be a lot warmer as these houses are made of concrete which holds the cold. We get a lot of condensation which is bad for our health. My husband is a poorly man and my son suffers from asthma and the damp doesn’t help.”
Arthur from Bainton grove, who is one of Clifton’s older residents, was looking forward to affordable warmth. One line in his letter—
“I’m a 76 year old man sitting with one bar on the fire”—
paints a vivid picture. Another of my constituents, who lives on Dovenby road, spends a lot of time in the house. She is 80 years old and lives on her own. She feels especially let down because all her bills are from British Gas, and she signed up at the launch meeting on the very first day of the scheme. Cheryl wrote on behalf of her mum, who lives on Wrenthorpe vale:
“Mum is 77 years old and has early stage Alzheimer’s. Being in most of the day she has the heating on most of the time. It has only recently been installed. Her bills have gone up phenomenally as the house, being concrete, is very cold. The difference to her heating bills and quality of life will be substantial. It’s all very disappointing.”
Of course, not just pensioners are affected, although they are particularly vulnerable to the cold and often face the most severe fuel poverty, which the levies are meant to help with. There are also problems for low-income families, such as my constituent on Colleymoor Leys lane who says:
“I am trying everything to heat my daughter’s bedroom. I have lined it with thermal wallpaper but it is still like an icebox. I cannot afford to keep the heating on and have to add layers to her and put a hot water bottle in with her and she’s only 3 years old. This is what I have been waiting for ever since I purchased this house in 2006. To have this stopped would be catastrophic. Please let my house have this. It will also help with my suspected rheumatoid arthritis. My daughter and I need this insulation urgently as it adds to her eczema due to the cold”.
The health of her children is also a concern for Carol who lives on Farnborough road. She says:
“I have 3 children living in my house. Myself and my 7 year old have asthma. The walls are damp and black and it smells in the rooms. I am spending money on heating up the house rather than buying food for my children. I am a single parent working and paying bills to get a loan to pay for this insulation. It’s killing me to have to get a loan, but for my health and my kids’ health I have to get it done. We’re living in 2014—things should be better now.”
Carol is right: it should be better than this. That is why Labour is prepared to protect consumers from excessive bills, reset the market and continue to invest in energy efficiency and measures to help those facing fuel poverty and the ever-rising cost of living.
The need for tough action on prices is very clear from the letter I received from a constituent who says:
“I was looking forward to being able to have more control of my heating costs in these trying financial times. As I approach retirement on a fixed income the spiralling energy bills are a constant concern”.
My constituent from Foxearth avenue speaks for many people when he says:
“British Gas should have been made to honour their commitment, they make enough profit”.
Three months on from the Energy Secretary’s announcement, we still have not had the consultation on his energy company obligation changes, and we have not seen any impact assessment. I know the impact that his changes are having in my constituency right now, and my constituents know what impact they are having. Action to tackle rising energy bills is vital, but the changes to green levies announced last year are not the way to go about it.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo) and his Committee for their report on parliamentary oversight of the levy control framework. It has been an important underpinning to this debate, and many of the issues it raises have been mentioned by Committee members and other hon. Members who have spoken. I hope that the Minister, if I give him enough time, can respond to those points before we conclude the debate. I am sure that he has paid attention to, and will want to respond to, the concerns raised by those who have spoken, and to the reflections of wider concerns expressed in recent months by several bodies and individuals, notably the National Audit Office. We have heard a refrain from some Members about the costs of so-called green levies. However, this has been a constructive debate and the more misleading aspects have not taken up much of our discussion.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) at the start of the debate, spoke about the scale of the levies as a proportion of consumers’ energy bills. He said that more than half the cost of the levies goes to support pensioners and people on low incomes who need help to pay their energy bills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) has just described powerfully the immediate impact that the changes to the ECO scheme have had. She rightly said that we are yet to see an impact assessment from the Government. I wonder whether the Minister will enlighten us on when we will see the impact assessment of those changes, which were announced three months ago.
It is important to reiterate that that help focuses on improving energy efficiency, which can help to reduce consumption and minimise increases in bills. I would expect most hon. Members, whether they are here this evening or not, to sign up to that as a common-sense proposition. The housing stock in the UK is among the most energy inefficient. Much of the stock in the private rented sector, which has many of the poorest tenants, is the most inefficient of all. Improving efficiency is a sensible step, to help keep people warm and to ensure that we are not just heating the streets outside the windows and the air above the roofs. It also has the positive economic benefits of creating jobs and controlling the amount of generating capacity we need to invest in, which I hope will be well recognised.
Members will be aware that levies have been applied to bills for various schemes. When the Government introduced the ECO scheme, the enthusiastic Minister of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) proclaimed it to be “transformational”. So transformational has it been that it has led to schemes, such as the one in Nottingham that we have just heard about, being abandoned. He has presented the cutting and spreading over time of ECO as though it is extending the scheme. That feat of verbal dexterity has not been surpassed in this debate so far.
The number of contributions from hon. Members from all parts of the House this evening has demonstrated the level of interest in and concern about these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West, who has a strong, consistent and unrivalled record of standing up for the fuel-poor in his constituency, in Scotland and across the UK, set out powerfully the way in which some people have used the debate over levies as a diversionary tactic to distract attention away from the need for reform in the retail and wholesale energy markets. I think that I heard him say that he is now convinced by the case for reform that is being set out from the Opposition Front Bench. I take that as a gain. I am sure that he will support our proposals in future.
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) highlighted concerns about the delivery of aspects of the ECO scheme, which was introduced by this Government, and the impact on his constituents and businesses that are involved in replacing boilers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who is a distinguished and long-serving member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, underlined in his usual thorough and comprehensive way which levies are included and are not included in the levy control framework. I got the sense that he anticipates with keenness the forthcoming secondary legislation on the Energy Act 2013, which I hope we will see shortly. Indeed, I think he anticipates it almost as keenly as I do.
The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) highlighted the importance of energy security and a balanced energy mix, given the impact of geopolitical events on the price of imported energy. She also referred to the potential of wave and tidal energy in her constituency and throughout the south-west more widely. Last week, I was fortunate to be in Belfast to speak at RenewableUK’s wave and tidal energy conference and had the chance to meet and to speak to representatives of companies, universities and other bodies in her area. The local enterprise partnerships in the area have joined up to create almost a regional development agency, after the RDAs were abolished, to ensure that they get the best possible benefit from that huge energy potential.
Sarah Newton
The Government created the South West Marine Energy Park. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the LEPs joined together to enable them to benefit from that very good Government initiative.
Tom Greatrex
I was very impressed by what I saw and heard from people at the conference in Belfast last week. The hon. Lady referred to the impact of the announcement on strike prices in the marine energy and wave and tidal sector. I am sure she is also aware that we are talking about nascent technologies, which could be a significant contributor in the 2020s. I hope she gets to the event that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test reminded her is happening tomorrow, because I am sure that others will be there who will be able to reiterate these points. It is also important, particularly for those technologies, that there is a signal beyond 2020.
The Minister seemed puzzled by the suggestion that an indication of the size of levy control framework beyond 2020 might be appropriate, but a 2030 de- carbonisation target would be appropriate. I am sure I need not remind the hon. Lady that that is supported by all parties in the House, other than hers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When the hon. Gentleman was in Belfast last week, did he have an opportunity to speak to anyone from the Northern Ireland Assembly about the role of the regulator in Northern Ireland who can have some control over energy prices in Northern Ireland? If he had such a discussion, has he been able to raise it with the Minister, and do the Opposition intend to give more power to the regulator so that prices for consumers can be reduced?
Tom Greatrex
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I did not speak to any Assembly Members last week because I was there on Thursday when, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there were significant issues of immediate and pressing concern to Assembly Members and many others. Some Assembly Members who were due to be at the conference were unable to attend, for understandable reasons. However, I had the opportunity to talk to some players in the Northern Irish and Irish markets about the role of the regulators there, and I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of our Green Paper so that he can see our proposals for a reformed and refocused regulator to ensure that there is a better balance in our regulatory regime.
The hon. Member for Southport said he had learned not to talk about estimates during estimates day debates. We had a master-class in that from the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), who made a wide-ranging contribution on a range of energy policy issues, many of which were common ground to many of us, and we were able to agree with much of what he said. He touched on the impact on jobs and growth in his constituency from the renewables sector. As a fellow Scottish Member, I share his interest. Some engineering companies in my constituency are part of that supply chain, and I hope and anticipate that it will continue. The tone of this debate has been positive and thoughtful. The opportunity for my constituency and his to benefit most from opportunities in the renewables sector is underpinned by being part of the UK and the single energy market which we currently enjoy as a result.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) touched on a number of issues, but most extensively those affecting Eggborough power station and his constituents. He may recall that I raised this issue at business questions just prior to Christmas, when I asked about the rumours that were circulating at that point. I think that the announcement in which the decision was confirmed was made on the day after the House went into recess. There are significant concerns about the way in which the FID-enabling process has progressed to date. I anticipate that further questions will be asked of the Government in relation not only to Eggborough but to other projects that slipped off the list and that had anticipated a different answer from the one that they got.
We are well aware of the proportion of the bills that consumers receive that is accounted for by levies within and outside the levy control framework: it is about 9% of the average bill, with the total amount added to bills being less than a third of the increase in bills since May 2010. It therefore does not stack up to attribute the majority of the increase in bills to levies, or green levies specifically. As the Minister is now well aware, 60% of the levies on bills have been introduced by the current Government since May 2010. I suspect that when he described the carbon price floor as an “absurd” waste of money and “assisted suicide”, he was not necessarily aware that it was a tax that had been introduced by his own Government. I am not sure whether those comments reflect his current view.
Apparently, as the Chancellor considers the Budget in the weeks ahead, he might reflect on the significant escalation of the additional element in bills. I join the Chair of the Select Committee and others who rightly noted that we in Parliament should be vigilant about the impact of levies on the bills of consumers and businesses. The oversight of a number of the arrangements relating to the levy control framework—which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test made clear, does not include all levies on bills—was a theme of several of our discussions in the Committee on the Energy Bill last year.
I ask the Minister to respond to some specific points. Will the capacity mechanism, and the demand-side options that will be considered as part of it, fall within the scope of the LCF in future? The Select Committee recommended that there should be a single annual report covering all DECC-funded schemes—those within and outside the levy control framework—to measure outcomes through spending, albeit that these moneys do not come from the consolidated fund. Have the Government looked into how that might be achieved, and does the Minister think it is a worthwhile exercise?
In its report on the operation of the LCF published in late November, the National Audit Office highlighted the failure of the joint Treasury and departmental governance board to link spending and outcomes in its deliberations. What assurance can the Minister provide that that will be rectified? The NAO also drew attention to schemes not covered by the framework and recommended that the Department should not only explain how it will control aggregate costs of consumer-funded schemes but elucidate on whether, together, those schemes are delivering what they are intended to deliver. What action do the Government intend to take in response to that?
The NAO returned to an issue that has been a matter of concern to many of us in recent months in relation to the allocation of contracts for difference within the LCF and the risk of breaching the cap if the wholesale price falls—another point made by the Chair of the Committee.
The NAO recommended that the Department and the Treasury should supplement published reporting on individual framework schemes by reporting routinely on levy-funded schemes. Has the Minister given that any consideration? The LCF is important, but it is also important that there is sufficient published information and accountability and that it should be taken with the same degree of seriousness with which this House views public spending from the consolidated fund. As the Chair of the Committee said, taxpayers and consumers are mostly the same people, and the impact falls on the same shoulders. The balance between the impact of the levies on consumers and the point of those levies has to be very carefully struck. The discussion about that balance can be better informed by a much stronger level of analysis being provided to this House for scrutiny.
I hope that the Minister will reflect on these important points to ensure that there is better, more thorough and more comprehensive parliamentary oversight of the levy control framework for the future, so that we can all be confident that it is delivering the policies that the Government are expecting it to deliver.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)
We have had a good debate, and I thank the Energy and Climate Change Committee and the National Audit Office for their recent reports on the levy control framework. I have written today to the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr Yeo), in response to some of the specific questions raised in the Committee’s letter sent last Tuesday. I hope that all members of the Committee have received a copy of that response.
Before turning to some of the major questions raised about the estimates, not least by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), let me address some of the specific points made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee asked about the levy control framework and whether the list of technologies was exhaustive. We have set out all the technologies that we consider should be supported at the moment up to 2018-19, although of course we cannot bind our successor—if there is one—and I do not rule out extending that support. He will see that we have put a support price for wave technology, tidal power and so on. He also asked for more details of the capacity mechanism. We are consulting on the exact operation of the capacity market and the auction, and he will receive more details about that shortly.
My hon. Friend asked about the position of carbon capture and storage in the levy control framework. The capital costs of carbon capture and storage—the £1 billion that the Government are committing to the two projects for which we have signed initial feed contracts—are not in the levy control framework because they are, of course, taxpayer funded. However, the operating costs will be covered through the framework. Finally, he asked me to speculate on the future movement of gas prices. There, I am afraid I cannot help him with any particular update or assumptions, and neither do I think that I would best respond to the debate by doing so.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) made important points about energy efficiency, and I do not think there is too much difference between the two sides of the House about the importance of those measures. He went on to attack the performance—indeed, the existence—of the big six. I did not hear him admit, however, that the big six were a creation of the previous Government, who seem to have started with 14 retail companies and ended up with the big six. He would have been on stronger ground if he had acknowledged the failure of the previous Government to do anything about increased concentration in the sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) made important points about the returns enjoyed by energy companies and the ECO, but his most important point was about the fuel poverty target and how, when we get the new target rolling, we should monitor it properly, account for its performance, and be sure to explain to those—including all the voluntary organisations that worked with us on the construction of a better focused target—how we are meeting it.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made a number of points about the estimates, which I will come to when I reply to the meat of the debate. He drew the House’s attention to the important inter-relationship between the carbon floor price and the levy control framework. He is right to remind us that any changes made to the carbon floor price will, of course, have implications for the levy control framework.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) referred to the strike prices for some of the newer technologies. I am glad that we were able to confirm those strike prices, which have been such a boost to renewable projects in her area. She went on to make some important points about our continuing work to improve the position of off-grid households. I certainly take her point that we perhaps ought to include some representation from Public Health England in our work. I will certainly reflect on that further, before I convene the next meeting of the ministerial round table in May.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), in a lengthy speech, paid much attention to the extent of renewables support without confirming that more than a third of renewable support goes to Scotland, which has just 9% of the population. He would have been on stronger ground if he had referred to the extent of support that comes from outside Scotland; not just from England, but from taxpayers in Northern Ireland and in Wales, too. More than one third of all our support for renewables ends up in Scotland, which has just 9% of the population.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) raised again the position of Eggborough. I do not think, because he champions the cause of Eggborough so well, that he fully appreciates that some 16 projects came forward under our intermediate regime. They all involve enormous taxpayer support, so it would not have been possible for taxpayers to support all 16 projects. We are taking nine projects forward on the basis—I have to correct him slightly—that all are ready to sign this month: all have finance in place this month. I am delighted to confirm that two are biomass conversions—Drax, right next door to him, and Lynemouth in Northumberland—so we are not neglecting the cause of biomass conversion. It is not right to say that a project not taken forward under the FID enabling process has, in the phrase I think was used the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, slipped off the list. We are not able to give taxpayer support to every single renewable project that came forward for the intermediate regime. Those not afforded under the regime will still, of course, have the option of applying under the existing renewables obligation or the forthcoming contract for difference.
The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) raised one important point in particular on the Clifton scheme in her constituency, which, she suggested to the House—I have no reason to doubt her—is a victim of the changes taking place in the ECO arrangements. She alleged that she had not had a reply from the Secretary of State. If that is true, we will certainly investigate and make sure that that point is chased up. I will, of course, write to her on the particular issue facing her scheme in Clifton and see exactly what the situation is. It is not true to say, by the way, that all six of the big six cheered when the announcements were made on the extra two years for the ECO. Some of those who had already committed to the work were not at all pleased that their competitors were being given further time, but I will look into the specific points mentioned.
On the specifics of the debate, as the NAO has acknowledged, the levy control framework is a valuable tool in supporting control of the costs to consumers as we pursue our energy policy objectives. The framework helps to drive investment in our energy sector. It helps to create jobs and growth, and, of course, takes us to a leaner, more secure energy supply. However, I recognise that proper oversight of the framework is important. Those who pay the bills, our constituents, need to know that Parliament is looking out for their interests in scrutinising this expenditure.
Let us look first at why we need the levy control framework. We need to secure an energy future at a cost that we can afford, and that is a huge task. One fifth of our power stations will go off line in the next six or so years. By 2030, if nothing else changes, we shall be importing 70% of our gas. Eight of the nine existing nuclear stations are scheduled to have closed by the time Hinkley Point C opens. However, in the same framework, energy demand may have doubled by 2050. The generation mix will have to tip significantly towards low carbon if we are to meet our legally binding climate change targets.
We are working to reform our energy sector to unlock investment now, and to create a framework for the delivery of a secure energy future. Nearly £40 billion had already been invested in the electricity sector between the beginning of 2010 and the middle of last year. More than 16 GW of new capacity has been brought on to the system, including five new gas plants, and a sixth is under construction. Two huge offshore wind farms opened last year, and we are seeing a very healthy pipeline in key technologies, including four more large offshore wind projects which are under construction. We remain No.1 in the world for offshore wind, and it is the work of the Government and, indeed, the work of the House that has enabled that to happen.
The Energy Bill received Royal Assent last December. That significant milestone laid the groundwork for the delivery of electricity market reform and sent a strong message to investors and industry about the cross-party agreement on the fundamentals of energy policy and the framework that we are establishing. The levy control framework is a key part of that. It provides certainty for investors, helps to control the costs of energy, and helps to ensure that the Government are held to account.
Last Monday I co-chaired the Offshore Wind Industry Council, which consists of many chief executives from different companies that are investing in the United Kingdom. They told me that the stability provided by the levy control framework had been an important factor in their decision to continue to invest in the UK. That is one of the reasons why the figures from Bloomberg show that the average annual investment in renewables has more than doubled in the current Parliament, from £3 billion to nearly £7 billion.
The provision of low-cost, low-carbon energy, improved energy security and the tackling of fuel poverty are all outcomes that the levy control framework helps to deliver, but it is obviously important for the impact on bills to be scrutinised closely and carefully as we pursue those goals. My Department is acutely aware of the pressure that consumers are facing, which is why we took action to reduce bills by an average of £50. The Opposition have a different approach, and we may disagree on the merits of that approach, but I think that Members on both sides of the House can agree that the cost of energy matters deeply to our constituents. It is therefore important for us to have an informed debate about it.
Let me say something about the work that we are doing to increase transparency. In March last year my Department published the prices and bills report, which showed the impact that our policies have had on bills in a clear and transparent way. The annual energy statement sets out our priorities, and an assessment of our progress in meeting our ambitious targets. In addition, Ofgem reports regularly on the costs and impact of each of our existing schemes.
During this evening’s debate, we have heard much about the coverage of the levy control framework. I do not want the purpose of the framework to be misinterpreted. It is a formal part of the public expenditure control framework. We have controls for departmental expenditure and annual managed expenditure budgets, and we also need controls for levies. However, the public expenditure control framework does just that: it exists to control public expenditure. Policies such as the energy company obligation are regulations, not public expenditure, so not all policies are considered public expenditure. The ECO is regulatory in nature and so lies outside the existing departmental expenditure limits and annually managed expenditure budget frameworks, but the fact that some consumer-funded policies sit outside the levy control framework does not diminish the oversight they should, and do, receive. Parliament has debated and passed primary and secondary legislation for all our major policies. Impact assessments that support those debates set out the full economic rationale for the action we propose to take.
We also take steps to monitor the costs of these policies and put that information into the public domain. On the ECO, for example, we published an assessment of the costs of compliance. Our bills and prices report takes account of the costs and benefits of all significant consumer-funded policy, including transmission costs, the ECO and smart meters.
However, we are not able to include three of our levies—the renewables obligation, the feed-in tariffs and the warm home discount—in our annual accounts. To those who have asked why not, the answer is that the Comptroller and Auditor General rightly requires Departments to meet international financial reporting standards. For the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the warm home discount, revenue does not flow through the Exchequer. Instead, industry collects the money directly from consumers and industry controls how those funds are used to meet the regulatory requirements. It follows therefore that the associated expenditure also cannot be included in my Department’s accounts and if it was, the head of the National Audit Office would be forced to quality it. The Government do not gain additional funds through these levies to spend at their discretion.
That is a fairly simplistic explanation of a technical accounting issue and I am sure hon. Members appreciate that the time available tonight does not permit me to go through the detail of international accountancy regulations.
I have asked my officials to work with Treasury officials and the NAO to try to overcome this issue to maintain a clear line of sight, but as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out in his letter to the Liaison Committee in November, we have not been able to find a way through this for the existing levy schemes. However, I can assure the House that revenue and expenditure for contracts for difference and for the capacity mechanism— a point raised earlier—will flow through public sector bodies, and they will therefore be included in my Department’s account and will form part of the estimate.
John Robertson
Does the Minister have any idea how much money we are talking about that is not being shown?
Michael Fallon
I think at this stage of the debate the hon. Gentleman will probably allow me to write to him about that as I do not have that figure at my fingertips. However, those are the three principal levies that are not included in the main estimates. As I have said, the revenue and expenditure for the CfDs and the capacity mechanism will be included in our account and will form part of the estimate.
So what we now need to do, working closely with Parliament, is find a satisfactory alternative for the existing schemes. The Committee’s report has provided a very useful contribution to this debate, and I am going to ask my officials to consider carefully the points that have been raised and I will also reflect the Committee’s points to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when I next discuss this with him.
I also recognise the accountancy and constitutional challenges this issue presents. Notwithstanding these technical challenges, I would like to set out now my intentions for the future reporting of consumer-funded policies, which lie at the heart of the Select Committee’s concern. First, I can confirm that the Government will publish information on consumer-funded policies that covers actual expenditure and forecast expenditure, and that captures the progress we are making towards our policy ambitions. I agree that that information would benefit from a proportionate independent audit and from being formally presented to the House. It is my intention to publish this information annually. The Chief Secretary wrote to the Chairs of the relevant Committees on 5 November, suggesting that this information should be published no later than Ofgem’s report on the renewables obligation. That report is due in March next year, but we need to do better than that, which is why my officials will work with their counterparts in Her Majesty’s Treasury and the National Audit Office to bring that date forward.
I hope that has been helpful. As I have said, we have made some real progress in delivering the investment that this country needs in its new energy infrastructure. The levy control framework is an important part of that process, giving confidence and transparency to investors. But Parliament has an important role in scrutinising the Government of the day and their actions on behalf of our constituents, and I welcome that scrutiny. I hope that the improvements I have suggested to the House tonight will help Parliament in performing its role in doing exactly that.
Question deferred until tomorrow at Seven o’clock (Standing Order No. 54(4)).
Census (Kashmiri Ethnic Representation)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful finally to have this debate. As some may be aware, the Kashmiri ethnic representation question was first raised in 2007 by Baroness Nicholson in the other place. Seven years later, it is finally being debated in this Chamber. Various Kashmiri organisations have estimated that about one in four British Muslims are of Kashmiri origin—that is one quarter of the British Muslim population who live in our communities, pay taxes and contribute to our economy. But the true accuracy of that statistic can never be known, as there is no official documentation of their ethnicity on the census.
British Kashmiris play a major role in the social, political, cultural, economic and religious life of the United Kingdom. The Kashmiri people are proud, hard workers who have brought a taste of Kashmir to our cities and towns. We have three Members of the Commons of Kashmiri origin: the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti); and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr Mahmood). In addition, Kashmiris hold hundreds of positions as local councillors across the country and heavily influence more than 30 constituencies at election time. This is why it is distressing that as a result of not having a Kashmiri ethnicity category, a community that totals well over half a million people is left vulnerable—I would go as far as to say that this is an injustice.
I wish to focus on two consequences of ignoring Kashmiri ethnicity in the census: under-representation and deprivation. I am of the belief that British Kashmiris run the risk of being under-represented in a population that does not specify their ethnicity. In my constituency, the vast majority of people of Kashmiri origin live in the most deprived wards. They are therefore most likely to be under-represented in terms of higher educational attainment and most likely to be over-represented in terms of poor, overcrowded housing. I have heard from people in my constituency that unemployment in Kashmiri communities is extremely high, perhaps 60% to 70% in some areas. It is also the case that people in these communities are disproportionately likely to rely on state benefits and most likely to be extremely economically deprived. Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation supports those conclusions. Please note my emphasis on the phrase “most likely” because speculation is all that we can do at this point. Minister, there is a community of people in our constituencies who are suffering because their needs are disregarded and their identities are lost.
Let me take this opportunity to put it on the record that an incredible amount of hard work has been done by councillors of Kashmiri origin in my constituency. They have put in many hours trying to address the concerns that I have just outlined. Councillors Daalat Ali, Amna Mir, Aftab Hussain, Iftikhar Ahmed, Mohammad Zaman and Shah Wazir all do incredible work for their communities. The work is extremely demanding because of the challenges that those communities face.
In my weekly surgery, I carry out a large amount of immigration casework. I sometimes make a point of asking people where they are from—what is their ethnic origin. Some respond, “Bangladesh.” Some say, “Ukraine.” Others say, “Poland”, but most respond, “Pakistan.” I stop them and clarify, “Do you mean Kashmir?” Their faces light up. They are delighted that someone in the political system recognises the difference.
It is troubling that while the census forgets about Kashmiris, Kashmiris are being told that their ethnic identity is not valid. Many have an incredibly strong sense of ethnic identity. They do not want to be counted as Pakistani or Indian because that is not how they think of themselves. Is it right for us as a democratic society, built on the differences of the many, to help to strip away the identities of the few? Should we not be celebrating the diverse cultures and identities within our country? Since 1991, the number of ethnicities on the census has doubled. That reflects the growing diversity of our country and the economic opportunities available to people here.
Before the 2011 census, the Office for National Statistics tested more than 20 new ethnicities, of which two would be added to the census. The ONS decided that any additional ethnicities beyond its quota would lead to compromises in the layout of the census. It decided that Gypsy/Irish Traveller and Arab ethnicities deserved to be represented in the census.
We now know, because of inclusion in the census, that Gypsies and Irish Travellers experience huge levels of unemployment, poor health, and often have poor educational attainment, according to ONS figures. They have few qualifications and a significant portion of their young population is not actively searching for work. Such results may be frustrating to hear, but, at the very least, preparations can be made to address the problems. After all, is not the fundamental reason of a census to convert population statistics into efficient, beneficial services?
The British Kashmiri community, the population of which is estimated to be more than four times that of Gypsies and Irish Travellers, will not receive special benefits catered to their needs and, as a result, will continue on the path of deprivation. Perhaps the most pressing issue surrounding these services is the language barrier. People of Kashmiri origin are disproportionately likely to rely on various state and local authority services. We therefore need to make sure that an appropriate number of staff are able to speak Parahi. It is my belief that inclusion on the census will help to ensure that we can take such steps and therefore better co-ordinate our services.
The Kashmiri population in my constituency makes up a significant portion of the night-time economy work force as taxi-drivers, take-away operators and by working in other jobs with unsocial hours. Again, knowing this information in a more statistical way would allow better community engagement strategies to be developed. Improved community engagement from my own local authority and many like it could create vital links to economic and social opportunities, so that Kashmiris can achieve their fullest potential. We could also look at introducing education and integration programmes among Kashmiri communities, who are historically very tight-knit and sometimes hesitant to take outside assistance.
As well as looking at our own communities, we should also be aware of the development of Kashmir itself. The Department for International Development is very active in Kashmir and a large amount of UK aid money is spent there. I recently met people from the RSA—the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce—to discuss its Pakistan Calling project, aimed at engaging the British Pakistani diaspora with development issues in Pakistan. The efforts of such fantastic projects would be greatly assisted if we had proper information about the number of people of Kashmiri origin in our country.
Now, obviously, it is almost impossible to discuss Kashmir without mentioning the current disputed state of that region. I understand that neither the Indian nor Pakistani Governments might be overjoyed by the United Kingdom Government recognising the Kashmiri identity as valid, but I would just like to make this point: I am strongly of the view that we should not let our own domestic arrangements be dictated to us by a desire to keep other countries happy. I hope that the Minister shares this view.
To conclude, I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, will he update the House on the preparations for the next census and whether the Government intend to hold one? Will he clarify whether they will consider adding new ethnicity categories and will Kashmiri be one of those considered? Finally, does he share my concerns about the challenges that face the Kashmiri community in this country, and does he agree that we need proper information if we are to meet these challenges?
If we continue to ignore the issues that people in this community face then it is not just they who will suffer but all British society. This seems a rather dramatic argument for what, at the end of the day, is simply a very small box on a very big form, but I really do feel that it would have important symbolic and practical value; practical, because it would allow us to gather more information on this important group and therefore target resources more effectively to meet their needs; and symbolic, because it would say to British Kashmiris that we accept them for who they are. It says to them that just because they are British does not mean they are not also Kashmiri.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Nick Hurd)
I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing a debate that is arguably overdue. I endorse what he had to say about the important role that the Kashmiri population plays in this country. His speech, powerful as it was, educated me about some of the challenges that that community faces, as I would not know that from my constituency. I very much welcome the opportunity to respond and to report on how the Kashmiri community was recognised in the 2011 census and the current status of planning for the collection of census-type statistics in the future, which is the main thrust of his inquiry.
I should perhaps have prefaced my remarks by explaining that, as the census is a devolved matter in Scotland and Northern Ireland, I will restrict my response therefore solely to the context of the census in England and Wales, which is administered by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of the UK Statistics Authority. In my response, it may help if I summarise the position regarding the collection of information on Kashmiris in the 2011 census. As in the previous census, the 2011 census included a question on ethnic grouping that allowed people to record themselves as Kashmiri.
Mr Hurd
As in the previous census, the 2011 census included a question on ethnic groups that allowed people to record themselves as Kashmiri by using the write-in facility in each of the main ethnic groupings on the census questionnaire. The question was not intended to establish the ethnic composition of the population as it might be understood by, for example, sociologists, but to capture in a common-sense or pragmatic way information on the categories of persons who are likely to be the victims of racial inequality or discrimination.
There is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a wide range of uses for ethnicity data collected in the census, including the opportunity to enable organisations to meet their statutory obligations on race relations and equal opportunities legislation. There is an element in the formulae for grant allocation by central and local government to inform policy development and monitoring, and to provide public bodies with a better understanding of the communities they serve and hence to inform public service provision.
The list of categories used to collect the ethnicity data was designed to enable the majority of the population to identify themselves in a manageable way. However, there is a practical limit to the number of separate tick box categories that can be included in any single ethnicity question. The question was already the longest on the questionnaire in the 2001 census, and consultation with users and communities during the planning of the 2011 census revealed a demand for yet more specific response categories to be included. In all, there were requests for about 20 new categories including Cornish, Gypsy/Irish Traveller, Arab, Sikh and, in particular, Kashmiri. The Office for National Statistics began consulting users in March 2005 on their requirements for the content of the census, with further consultations in 2006 and 2007 specifically on the topics of ethnicity, national identity, language and religion.
Four submissions of the 2,000 or more received during the 2005 consultation were from the Kashmiri community. Some 78 respondents of the 530 to the subsequent consultation in 2007 sought better information on the Kashmiri population. Of these, 20 were from local government service providers while the rest were from special interest groups and private individuals. The need for better information on Kashmiris was also raised by three attendees at ONS’s census open meetings in March 2007. The case for a Kashmiri tick box to be included in the 2011 census ethnic group question was considered carefully alongside the requests for all the other new categories—many more than could possibly be included on the census questionnaire.
With space for only two new tick boxes, ONS developed a set of principles by which requirements for the new categories could be assessed and prioritised. They covered the strength of need for the information; the lack of alternative sources of information; the clarity and quality of the information collected and acceptability to respondents; and comparability with the 2001 census data. The reasons most often cited for identifying Kashmiris as distinct from Pakistanis, for whom a tick box category was already provided, included, first, identity. Although, as the hon. Gentleman knows better than I do, Kashmiris may self-identify as Pakistani, that may not be their strongest or preferred choice; this is linked to the desire by some Kashmiris for a separate Kashmiri state.
The second reason was resource allocation and service delivery. Local authorities and other organisations may not distribute resources effectively among different parts of the self-reported Pakistani population. Organisations may make assumptions about the need for language translation provision for this population—for example, that Urdu is the only language required for those with low English language proficiency. Thirdly, monitoring inequalities was a consideration. There is a suggestion that Kashmiris may be more disadvantaged than other Pakistanis as a result of their rural background. Their experiences may be masked by those of other Pakistanis when they are combined in the same ethnic grouping. That is the core reason often cited for identifying Kashmiris as distinct from Pakistanis.
The case for a Kashmiri tick box scored well in the ONS prioritisation exercise, but not as well as the two new ethnic group categories that were eventually included: Gypsy/Irish Traveller and Arab. Moreover, there were other ethnic groups of the Indian subcontinent—Sikh, in particular—that respondents would have expected to see if a Kashmiri category had been included. Introducing further tick boxes on the census questionnaire would have meant removing something else or making unacceptable compromises with questionnaire layout and the consequent quality of the information collected.
Following representations and meetings—in particular a meeting at the ONS on 1 May 2009 between senior ONS officials and Kashmiri representatives, including the co-ordinator of the Kashmir national identity campaign, who I understand is one of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents—a Kashmiri research project was undertaken in 2009. A subsequent report was published, with which the hon. Gentleman is no doubt familiar, given his role as treasurer of the all-party group on Kashmir. It is available on the ONS website, the details of which I can provide to him later, should he so wish.
The conclusions of the research project were that the addition of a Kashmiri tick box increased the likelihood of multiple ticking, because people could consider themselves to be Kashmiri and Pakistani, Indian, or some other ethnic group; and the overall rate of multiple response in a postal test had been low, but focus groups and interviews had revealed that the addition of a Kashmiri tick box might cause confusion among respondents over which box to tick.
Many of the arguments for information on Kashmiris are related to the need to ensure that services are provided in the appropriate languages, a point the hon. Gentleman made. Kashmiris speak more than one language from the Kashmir region, and a key concern was that service delivery organisations assume that the only language needed for Pakistanis is Urdu. However, the ONS argued that that information would be better collected from the question on main language that it proposed including in the 2011 census for the first time. That would identify those people whose main language is Pahari or Mirpuri. Service providers would then have the information required to identify the services needed to support the Kashmiri people who would otherwise be disadvantaged because of language difficulties.
Taken as a whole, the programme of consultation with the Kashmiri community, whether through formal advisory groups, public and invited meetings, or the ONS’s innovative community liaison programme, successfully contributed in the end to a high level of support for, and participation in, the census. Although some representatives of the community actively opposed the census, even in the latter stages of the consultation, the community eventually ran its own self-funded publicity campaign to urge Kashmiris to “be counted and get recognised” by using the write-in option on the questionnaire.
The lack of a specific Kashmiri tick box has not prevented information about the Kashmiri community from being available from the 2011 census results. Write-in responses to the ethnic group question were coded according to the main ethnic grouping under which they were recorded, as was done following the 2001 census, and the results have been published. As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, some 25,265 individuals identified themselves as Kashmiri in that way. Almost all wrote in their response under the main “Asian/Asian British” ethnic group, but a small minority identified themselves among some of the other main groups— 125 under the “Mixed/multiple ethnic” group, 105 under the “White” group, and 352 under the “Other” group. The total figure compares with the 23,191 who reported themselves as Kashmiri in the 2001 census.
The hon. Gentleman asked how information on Kashmiris will be collected in any future census. I have to advise him that it is too early to know whether there will be another census in England and Wales in the form that we have previously known, or what questions might be asked, but he can be reassured that any proposals for a question on ethnicity in any future census will be based on a comprehensive programme of consultation and testing to ensure that it will meet users’ requirements and be acceptable and understandable to respondents. He will already be aware of that from the ONS’s answer to his recent parliamentary question.
The UK Statistics Authority established the Beyond 2011 programme in April 2011 to consider the best way of meeting future requirements for population and socio-demographic statistics in England and Wales by assessing the relative merits of a number of alternative approaches. Over the last three years the programme has undertaken extensive research to determine the best way of providing population statistics in future. The results of that work show that there are two potentially viable approaches to census taking in future: once a decade, like that conducted in 2011, but primarily online; and using existing administrative data and compulsory annual surveys. The issues and implications associated with the findings, including descriptions of each approach and its strengths, weaknesses, risks and opportunities, as well as information on the statistics that each method provides, formed the basis for a major public consultation in the latter part of 2013. One response has been received from a private individual that referred to the recognition of people with a Kashmiri heritage, but it did not specifically call for a Kashmiri tick box in the ethnic group question in the next census.
The results of the consultation are being analysed and a full report will be published in spring 2014. It is expected that the national statistician and the UK Statistics Authority will make a recommendation to the Government based on a comprehensive assessment of the research undertaken. It will then be for the Government and Parliament to agree the arrangements for conducting any future census in England and Wales on the basis of that recommendation.
I should stress to the hon. Gentleman that at this point no decisions have been made on the topics or questions that could be considered for any future census. Consultation on the 2011 census questions did not start until 2005, so whatever the form of the next census, the ONS would not expect to start consultations on its content until next year at the earliest. However, in securing this debate and in his speech, the hon. Gentleman has played an important role in ensuring that the voice of the Kashmiri community will be heard loud and clear in that process.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Educational Attainment (Disadvantaged Pupils)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
I thank other hon. Members who spoke. There were good speeches from the hon. Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). I should put the hon. Member for Cardiff West out of his misery before he intervenes on me to ask about the teachers’ work load survey, which he has become obsessed about. I have fantastic news for him, which will make his day: it will be published, not just shortly, but on 4 March. In the very near future he will be able to see all the information and get all the answers he wants.
[Official Report, 25 February 2014, Vol. 576, c. 57-8WH.]
Letter of correction from David Laws:
An error has been identified in a statement made on 25 February 2014.
The correct statement should have been:
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
I thank other hon. Members who spoke. There were good speeches from the hon. Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and interventions from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) and the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns). I should put the hon. Member for Cardiff West out of his misery before he intervenes on me to ask about the teachers’ work load survey, which he has become obsessed about. I have fantastic news for him, which will make his day: it will be published, not just shortly, but on 28 February. In the very near future he will be able to see all the information and get all the answers he wants.
Petition
Development of Greenbelt Land in South Staffordshire
Written Statements
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign Affairs Council
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council called to discuss Ukraine on 20 February in Brussels, chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Commissioner Füle (Enlargement) was also in attendance.
Foreign Affairs Council
A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa. eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/141113.pdf
Ukraine
Ministers met on 20 February for an extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council to decide on the EU’s response to the rapidly worsening situation in Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary said that the EU needed to react strongly and do what we could to stop the violence. He argued that the sanctions should be swift, well targeted and effective.
The Council agreed conclusions, which condemned in the strongest terms all use of violence, and called for those responsible for grave human rights violations to be brought to justice, and which set in train EU sanctions including assets-freezes and a visa ban for those responsible for violence. In addition, a ban on equipment that might be used for internal repression was also agreed. The conclusions recalled that the EU remained ready to support Ukraine in the process of reform to deliver a stable, prosperous and democratic future for its citizens.
The Foreign Secretary’s statement to the House on 24 February 2014, Official Report, column 26 set out how UK policy has developed to take account of the dramatic changes in Ukraine over the previous weekend.
Machinery of Government Change (Energy-using Products Policy)
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This written ministerial statement confirms that policy responsibility for energy-using products will transfer from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Department for Energy and Climate Change. This responsibility includes, but is not limited to, the UK’s interests in the IEA implementing agreement on energy-efficient end-use equipment (4E) and the super-efficient deployment initiative (SEAD); the eco-design directive (20091125/EC) and energy labelling directive (2010/30/EU), and the UK regulations which transpose them (SI 2010/2617 and SI 2011/1524, both as amended), and associated market surveillance activities; and the UK’s role as project co-ordinator for the European ecopliant project.
Commission on Devolution in Wales
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)
The Government established the Commission on Devolution in Wales (the Silk commission) in October 2011 with the support and full engagement of the Welsh Government and all four parties in the National Assembly for Wales.
The Silk commission reported on the first part of its remit in November 2012, recommending the devolution of fiscal powers to the National Assembly for Wales (“the Assembly”). The Government are implementing almost all of the Silk commission’s recommendations, and will bring forward a Wales Bill as soon as parliamentary time allows to devolve tax and borrowing powers to Wales. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee reported last week on its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill in draft, and the Government are carefully considering the recommendations which the Committee has made.
I can inform the House that the Silk commission has today reported on the second part of its remit (“Silk II”), examining the powers of the Assembly and recommending modifications to the Welsh devolution boundary. I have placed copies of the report in the Library of the House.
The publication of today’s report concludes the work of the Silk commission. I would like to thank the commission for fulfilling its remit and for its commitment and hard work over the last two and a half years. I would like to pay tribute to the commissioners, who have worked tirelessly and on an unpaid basis, and to Paul Silk, chair of the commission, for his dedication and leadership. The commission has produced two thorough, well researched reports which I am sure history will record as important contributions to the development of devolution in Wales.
I warmly welcome publication of the report, which provides a comprehensive analysis of devolution in Wales and makes recommendations for change which are thought-provoking and thoroughly researched. The Government will now carefully consider in full each of the recommendations and their implications.
This Government have a proud track record on devolution within a strong United Kingdom—devolving further powers to Scotland in the Scotland Act 2012, and in Wales providing for the 2011 referendum which resulted in the Assembly assuming primary law-making powers in all 20 devolved areas. The Wales Bill will take devolution a step further, devolving tax and borrowing powers to the Assembly and the Welsh Government for the first time, making those institutions more accountable to the people who elect them.
The Silk II report proposes a clear course for the future, and makes recommendations which would broaden and deepen Welsh devolution further. I would like to set out how I see matters moving forward.
There is now a little over 12 months remaining of this Parliament. This is insufficient time for the Government to implement any changes that would require primary legislation, given the degree of consideration that the Silk commission’s recommendations demand.
Given the significant extent of the work now needed to be done, I do not consider the Wales Bill to be a suitable vehicle to implement the recommendations made in today’s report. I believe it is important that the Bill remains focused on delivering the devolution of tax and borrowing powers which the Government announced in November. The Government intend that these powers will be devolved to the Assembly and the Welsh Government well before the next Assembly elections in May 2016, subject to the successful parliamentary passage of the Bill. Adding additional measures to the Bill in relation to Assembly powers would inevitably delay the Bill’s progress and jeopardise this timetable.
These will therefore be matters for the next Government and Parliament, and it will be for political parties to set out their proposals and intentions to the electorate. However, I can say now that we in Government will be taking a very positive approach to the Silk commission’s work, in keeping with our proud record on devolution.
For those recommendations that will not require primary legislation, we will consider early implementation during this Parliament if, after due consideration, we are satisfied that the case for the change is clearly made, there is a broad consensus in favour and it can be implemented quickly and easily.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) (Con)
My Lords, the Grand Committee is now in session. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions (Investigations) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do consider the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions (Investigations) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions (Investigations) Regulations 2014. With your permission, I will refer to them as the investigations regulations.
The current regulatory regime for co-operatives, community benefit societies and credit unions is in need of modernisation in order to deliver better outcomes for consumers and the sector in Great Britain, now and for the years to come. The Government are therefore taking forward a package of measures, following a public consultation last year. The investigations regulations are part of this package.
The other three measures in the package will increase the amount of withdrawable share capital an individual can invest in a society from £20,000 to £100,000; make insolvency rescue procedures available to industrial and provident societies; and simplify electronic registration for new societies.
These changes, alongside progressing the co-operative and community benefit societies consolidation Bill, demonstrate the Government’s commitment to promote mutual bodies and to foster diversity in the UK economy while preserving the unique features of the sector. There are around 7,600 societies and 380 credit unions registered in Great Britain. The sector continues to provide a popular and successful structure for mutually run businesses, with a growing membership of more than 15 million members in the UK.
Looking specifically at the investigations regulations, this statutory instrument gives the Financial Conduct Authority additional powers to investigate co-operatives, community benefit societies and credit unions where circumstances suggest their behaviour may be improper or unlawful. The FCA initially requested these changes to legislation to enhance its powers to investigate societies. The proposal was included in the Government’s July 2013 public consultation, Industrial and Provident Societies: Growth through Co-operation, and was well received by respondents from industrial trade bodies, individual societies, credit unions and consumer groups.
The investigations regulations aim to increase confidence in co-operatives, community benefit societies and credit unions by creating a level playing field with the requirements that companies face. Therefore, the additional powers for the FCA are in line with the current powers in the Companies Act 1985, appropriately modified for societies. The investigations regulations include a number of new powers, including the requirement for the FCA to appoint an inspector if a court instructs it to do so. They also give the FCA power to appoint an inspector to investigate the affairs of a society. The power is available in the same circumstances as for companies, for example where it appears to the FCA that the society’s business may have been conducted with an intention to defraud creditors or for unlawful purposes.
Other powers concern the expenses of an investigation and state that these would be payable in the first instance by the FCA, which would then have the power to recover them from the society investigated. The total cost of an investigation is expected to be no more than £100,000, since co-operatives, community benefit societies and credit unions are relatively simple business models compared with large companies, where much higher costs may be involved.
In practice, the FCA’s first intention would be to recover the costs of an investigation from the periodic fees paid by all societies; as a last resort the FCA may consider using its central budget before passing on any costs to a society. It is also worth noting that the FCA estimates, based on past experience, that it would only need to use the powers to investigate up to one society a year.
The measure also gives the FCA, or an authorised investigator, power to give directions to a society to produce documents and provide information. This is similar to the FCA’s existing powers but, in addition, the investigations regulations give the FCA or an authorised person the power to apply to a magistrate for a warrant of entry to premises of a society on the same grounds as those relating to companies.
These regulations will help to improve the legislation for co-operatives, community benefit societies and credit unions by bringing it more into line with that for companies and giving members of these societies confidence that the regulator has adequate powers to act to investigate those societies suspected of wrongdoing. This will benefit the co-operatives sector as a whole by giving more confidence in the legal form, and it has been welcomed by the main trade body, Co-operatives UK. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations seem to be universally welcomed and they are certainly welcomed from these Benches. I studied the Explanatory Memorandum with some care and looked at the general Committee debate in another place. The only point that my eyes alighted upon was the powers mentioned in paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum. The other powers concern the expenses of the investigation. These will be payable in the first instance by the FCA but will be recovered from the society being investigated, which rather implies that they go through the FCA as a transaction. I note the response that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made in another place, using more or less the same words that the Minister has used—that it would be unusual for such a charge to be passed through to the society being investigated. However, I would welcome an assurance that where the investigation reveals no malpractice, there will certainly be no passing through of the charge to the society concerned. With that, I am entirely content with the regulations and fully support them.
Lord Newby
My Lords, in respect of the noble Lord’s question, the FCA has the option of either recouping its costs directly from the society in question or funding the costs from within its own overall budget. In the case of a society being felt to have committed no wrongdoing, the FCA may well decide that it is more appropriate to adopt the latter option. However, the decision will be for the FCA. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce to the Committee the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2014. As both the regulations and the order deal with national insurance contributions, it seems sensible that they should be debated together. As a matter of course, I can confirm that the provisions in the regulations and the order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The changes to the NICs rates and thresholds covered by these two instruments were announced as part of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement on 5 December last year. It is worth confirming from the start that the basis of indexation that has been used to calculate the changes covered by these two instruments is the same as that used since the 2012-13 tax year.
In the Budget 2011, we announced that from the 2012-13 tax year the basis for indexation of most NICs rates limits and thresholds would be the consumer prices index, the CPI, instead of the retail prices index, RPI, rate of inflation. This is because the Government believe that the CPI is the most appropriate measure of the general level of prices. The exceptions to this are the secondary threshold and the upper earnings and upper profits limits.
I will start with the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations. These regulations are necessary to set the class 1 national insurance contributions lower earnings limit, primary and secondary thresholds and the upper earnings limit for the 2014-15 tax year. The class 1 lower earnings limit will be increased from £109 to £111 per week from 6 April 2014. The lower earnings limit is the level of earnings at which contributory benefit entitlement is secured. However, NICs do not need to be paid by the employee until earnings reach the primary threshold. The class 1 primary threshold will be increased from £149 per week to £153 per week from 6 April 2014. The secondary threshold is the point at which employers start to pay class 1 NICs. In line with the commitment in Budget 2011, this is being increased by RPI from £148 to £153 per week.
From this April, the income tax personal allowance for people born after 5 April 1948 will be increased above indexation by £560 from £9,440 to £10,000. The point at which higher rate tax is payable will be increased to £41,865 in the 2014-15 tax year. As I mentioned, the upper earnings limit is not subject to CPI indexation. This is to maintain the existing alignment of the upper earnings limit with the point at which higher rate tax is paid. The upper earnings limit will be increased from £797 to £805 per week from 6 April 2014. The regulations also set the prescribed equivalents of the primary and secondary thresholds for employees paid monthly or annually. There will be no changes to NIC rates in 2014-15. Employees will continue to pay 12% on earnings between the primary threshold and the upper earnings limit, and 2% on earnings above that. Employers will continue to pay contributions at 13.8% on all earnings above the secondary threshold.
I move on to the social security order. This order sets out the NICs rates and thresholds for the self-employed and those paying voluntary contributions as well as providing for a Treasury grant. The order raises the small earnings exception below which the self-employed may claim exemption from paying class 2 contributions. The exception will rise in April, from £5,725 to £5,885 a year. Many self-employed people choose to pay these contributions in order to protect their benefit entitlement even though they may claim exemption from paying class 2 contributions. The rate of class 2 contributions for the 2014-15 tax year will rise from £2.70 to £2.75 a week. The rate of voluntary class 3 contributions will also increase from £13.55 to £13.90 a week for the 2014-15 tax year.
Today’s order also sets the profit limits for class 4 contributions. The annual lower profits limit on which these contributions are due will increase from £7,755 to £7,956 in line with the increase to the class 1 primary threshold. At the other end of the scale, the annual upper profits limit will increase from £41,450 to £41,865 for the 2014-15 tax year. This is to maintain the alignment of the upper profits limit with the upper earnings limit for employees. The changes to the class 4 limits will ensure that the self-employed pay contributions at the main rate of 9% on a similar range of earnings as employees paying class 1 contributions at the main rate of 12%. Profits above the upper profits limit are subject to the additional rate of 2% in line with the 2% paid by employees on earnings above the upper earnings limit.
Finally, I need to ensure that the National Insurance Fund can maintain a prudent working balance throughout the coming year, which the Government Actuary recommends should be one-sixth or two months of benefit expenditure. The rerating order provides for a Treasury grant of 5% of benefit expenditure to be made available to the fund in the 2014-15 tax year. Similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund. I commend the regulations and order to the Committee.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I have studied the Explanatory Memorandum and these regulations with great care, and I have to confess that I am finding it very difficult to find any questions whatever to ask on them. The report of the general committee in the other place was equally bereft of any serious exchange. There were some technical questions asked but I will not repeat them, on the basis that I am sure that the Treasury machine would give precisely the same answers. There was an exchange on some thinking that we are developing about a different rate of benefit for people who have paid contributions over a number of years but that has to be developed further, to make sure that it is cost-neutral. The 5% that the Minister mentioned is, as I understand it, essentially a piece of book-keeping and does not represent any increase in overall public expenditure. I am not sure whether the Minister said that explicitly and I would value it if he were to confirm that but otherwise we have no comments to make on these regulations.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I can confirm that the provision of a 5% Treasury grant is indeed a piece of book-keeping and does not involve any additional expenditure.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, before we start the next business, due to the efficiency with which we have executed our previous business, we are rather scratching to find a spokesman. I wonder whether we might take a 10-minute break for the Opposition to find a spokesman for the next round.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, yes, in due course but the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, is being a little previous.
Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) (Con)
My Lords, I think by general agreement the Grand Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2014
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, in introducing this debate on the Warm Home Discount (Amendment) Regulations 2014, I will first give some background to the scheme to provide context to this amendment.
The coalition is committed to tackling the problem of fuel poverty and to helping people, especially in low-income vulnerable households, heat their homes. Fuel poverty remains a huge challenge. Despite significant investment in improving our housing stock, some housing remains inefficient. Combined with rising energy prices, that means that there are still too many households left in fuel poverty. The warm home discount scheme is part of the Government’s programme to address the contributing factors of fuel poverty, either through increasing income or reducing the costs of energy.
Introduced in 2011, the key aspect of the warm home discount is that it requires electricity suppliers with more than 250,000 domestic customer accounts to provide financial support with energy costs to their vulnerable customers. Spending is incurred by participating suppliers in respect of two groups of customers: first, the poorest pensioners, who are customers of participating energy suppliers—described in regulations as the “core group”—and secondly, other low-income and vulnerable customers. This second group comes under what is described as “non-core spending”.
Under the core group, all the poorest pensioners eligible for the scheme receive a rebate in respect of their electricity cost from their supplier. This winter, that rebate was £135. Other groups, such as low-income families and those with long-term illnesses and disabilities, can apply for rebates to their supplier. Those rebates are counted as part of non-core spending and are also worth £135 this winter.
Since the warm home discount scheme was introduced, around 2 million households each year have had lower energy bills as a result. Due to the success of the warm home discount, the Government have committed to extend support to 2016, with spending of £320 million in addition to the £1.1 billion which will be spent over the first four years of the scheme.
This amendment aims to give energy suppliers the incentive to spend £34 million more than they are required to spend this scheme year. As a result, more than 250,000 more low-income and vulnerable households could benefit from a £135 rebate this scheme year. That would also maintain an upward trajectory of spending each scheme year.
There is an overall spending target for each year of the warm homes discount which sets out the value of assistance that participating suppliers should collectively provide. For 2013-14, the spending target set out in regulations is £300 million. That total spending is divided into the demand-led core group and the non-core spending. Having estimated the size of the core group, the Government set the total non-core spending obligation for suppliers for the forthcoming scheme year. The larger the core group, the smaller the amount of non-core spending suppliers have for other groups of households who may qualify for a rebate. The size of the core group has to be estimated in advance of the start of each scheme year to inform suppliers and give them sufficient time to prepare for their spending obligations.
When the department set the non-core spending obligation in advance of the 2013-14 scheme year, it estimated that the core group would result in spending of £200 million. Given a total spending target of £300 million, the department set the total non-core spending obligation at £100 million. However, six months on from setting the non-core spending obligation, the size of the core group was lower than forecast. Therefore, we now estimate that suppliers will spend £166 million on their core group customers in 2013-14.
That means that £34 million of the overall spending target that suppliers could use to help other vulnerable households would not be required to be spent in 2013-14. Under the current regulations, if suppliers spend more than required, their individual obligations for the next scheme year are reduced by a maximum of 1% of the current scheme year’s non-core spending obligation, even if they overspend on more than 1%.
The amendment would change that maximum limit to 34%, providing an incentive for suppliers to spend above their obligations by up to that amount. For example, if an individual supplier spends 25% above its individual non-core spending obligation in 2013-14, Ofgem will reduce its obligation in 2014-15 by the same amount.
However, spending by suppliers will still be higher next winter than this winter. The amendment is intended to close the gap in spending between years so that we maintain the growth in the number of households who receive electricity bill rebates year on year. As required in the regulations, the Secretary of State has already notified Ofgem of the non-core spending obligation for 2014-15. The Secretary of State has set the obligation based on spending of £266 million in 2013-14, and has added the £34 million underspend against the total spending target this scheme year to the spending target for 2014-15. This takes us to a total of £344 million.
However, if suppliers incur more non-core spending than they are required to prior to the end of March, Ofgem will be able to adjust down individual non-core spending obligations by 30 September once suppliers report their actual spending for this scheme year. This change has been consulted on and all respondents were supportive of the change. Although suppliers have not given us exact forecasts of how many more rebates they intend to provide, some suppliers have already decided to spend above their regulatory obligations in anticipation of this change. This amendment means that more low-income and vulnerable households may receive £135 off their bills this winter than would have been the case otherwise. It will give suppliers the incentive to provide more rebates to a greater number of households this year and therefore provide more help to tackle fuel poverty. For those reasons, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know that fuel poverty is one of the areas in which I take a particular interest. During the passage of the last Energy Bill, due to pressure on the Government from myself and many others, we were pleased to have a fuel poverty strategy from the Government in that Bill. Therefore, I particularly welcome the changes here, which mean that more vulnerable and low-income households will be taken out of fuel poverty.
As we have listened to my noble friend, it is obvious that the regulations surrounding all this are incredibly complicated. Have the Government any plans to try to simplify this as they move forward with their fuel poverty strategy? I was going to ask how many people will be taken out of fuel poverty, but I think that he answered that in his opening comments.
It is particularly important that we look at the cost of fuel because, although a lot has been said in the press about people who are choosing between food and fuel and about people attending food banks, the real increase for people on low incomes has been in the price of fuel. The increase in fuel prices is much higher than for the price of food, particularly for people on low incomes who are on some form of benefit, because they are often unable to access the cheapest rates for fuel. They have a key card and pay more than many people who can afford more. So I welcome this provision, but I would like to know how it fits in as we go forward with the fuel poverty strategy.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clear exposition of his amendment. Like him, we see it as an issue subject to significant challenge. As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has just said, it is the poorest who sometimes pay comparatively more for their fuel; those who of us who are better off can do it with direct debits and take advantage of various schemes on offer.
I have a couple of questions. I understand the thrust of what the Minister was saying. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Grantchester will chip in and support me on this, as I think that he has done the background work. I am a little unclear as to why the numbers in the core group are falling short of what was originally anticipated. My understanding is that the access to that group is determined by pension credit—either the guaranteed credit or the savings credit. I think that there is an age threshold of 75 and above for either savings credit or the guaranteed credit; for those below that age, it is just the guaranteed credit. Part of my question is, if it is because fewer people have been able to access pension credit—we know that pension credit is one of the benefits with the lowest level of take-up—what are the Government doing to address that?
Specifically, in relation to the core group, the non-core group and the criteria going forward, the Government are introducing a Pensions Bill at the moment with the single-tier pension. One consequence of that Bill is that, from April 2016, pension credit or savings credit is being abolished. Therefore, people who retire on or after that date will not be entitled to the savings credit. Fewer will be entitled to the guarantee credit because the idea of the single state pension effectively is to have a pension which is at the current guaranteed pension credit level or slightly above it. The income of people will not be substantially different but they may be swapping state pension for what was a guarantee credit top-up.
Therefore, there are two categories of people; namely, those currently entitled to savings credit, which will disappear in April 2016, and those currently entitled to guarantee credit who will end up with broadly equivalent income but will get it via the single-tier pension and not via the guarantee credit. If those two avenues, which I understand are the access to the core group, are no longer available, what discussions have taken place? What focus has there been on any alternative route and access to the warm home discount scheme? I am sure that the Government have turned their mind to that issue, which seems to me to be vital. I would be interested to hear from the Minister quite what is proposed.
I am not quite sure that I grasped what the Minister said. I certainly will read the record. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Grantchester will ask how the carryover will work. If the net effect is for an extra £34 million to be available in support of this scheme, clearly we would support that. I am not quite sure how the cut-off points work and whether the discounts are dealt with on a financial-year basis; that is, they run until 31 March, notwithstanding the fact that someone’s account might span that date and, in a sense, run over any period. Doubtless the Minister will be able to enlighten us. Those are my questions but my noble friend may well wish to supplement them. I thank the Minister for his exposition of these proposals.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee for being caught out in my public transport arrangements this afternoon and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord McKenzie for stepping in at the last minute. He is right that the core group has been reduced and in asking his questions. In terms of the year being averaged with the following year, as I understand it, the shortfall in any one year and the expenditure can be carried over into the non-core group. The Minister is nodding his head in confirmation. Obviously my noble friend has asked the pertinent question of what is being done to make sure that the right people are targeted and helped in order to receive the money that they so desperately need to alleviate fuel poverty.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank your Lordships for their comments. I had personal sympathy with my noble friend Lady Maddock when she spoke about simplification. I had to read some of this brief rather more than once or twice and the point is very much taken on board. This spring, we will be consulting on the future of the scheme, part of which is to see whether we can simplify it in a way that is perhaps more readily understandable and user-friendly.
The whole basis of this part of what we are seeking to do is to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are protected as well as possible, given rising prices and, as I have explained, homes that are not as efficient as we would like. I know that my noble friend Lady Maddock has been a fierce champion of fuel poverty issues, and rightly so. As I said, that is part of what we are seeking to do. Certainly, the whole way in which this amendment is designed and why it is important is because it provides another £34 million for that non-core spending that will help families, which is so important.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Can the Minister help me out on that point? He differentiated between forecasts for pension credit as a whole and forecasts of those components of pension credit which drive accessibility to the warm home discount scheme. What is different about that second category compared to those who are otherwise generally entitled to access pension credit?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I may have to write to the noble Lord because this is getting intricate. However, we are intending to consult this spring on the changes to pension credit impacts. This will include impacts to the changes to the benefits system vis-à-vis, as the noble Lord mentioned, pension credit and universal credit. Therefore, the best thing I can do is to make sure that I get this absolutely right for the noble Lord. Rather like these regulations, some of it is quite intricate, and I would like to give the noble Lord a full answer to that particular point if that would be helpful.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
That would be very helpful, and I am grateful to the Minister. I will revert to this issue about the changes which the Government are proposing to the state pension. Part of that is that the savings credit will simply not be available in the future—it will disappear as a benefit. Therefore what discussions have taken place and what planning is under way to make sure of the position of people who currently access the warm home discount scheme because they are in receipt of that benefit? What will be their position and access in the future? That is a pretty important policy issue. We have tried to get some clarity via the Pensions Bill; it would be good to get some clarity somewhere on this.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Given the points the noble Lord has made, the best thing would be for me to include that issue in a letter. That would be more fulfilling as regards getting the answer he is looking for.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
It would be particularly helpful to have that explanation by the time we get to Third Reading of the Pensions Bill, as it is one of the few residual issues on that piece of legislation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I shall ensure that the noble Lord gets a letter.
In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, was right to say that the basis of this is to get the right groups targeted. This is part of the way in which the Government wish to address fuel poverty. It is right that the net effect is to ensure that another £34 million goes in to help families. I agree that we should look at how we simplify these matters, but under the regulations we are dealing with we need to have this amendment.
Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston)
My Lords, these regulations will help to maintain the smooth operation of the business rates retention scheme in England. The scheme allows local authorities to retain up to 50% of business rates income in their area, which provides a direct incentive and a boost to those authorities that go for growth. This incentive could deliver a £10 billion boost to the economy by 2020.
The scheme was first introduced last April and since then we have continued to hold discussions with local government on how it operates in practice. These regulations make some technical changes to the rules for calculating the levy and safety net under the business rates retention scheme, which we have identified as a result of those discussions. All of the changes we are making today have been agreed with representatives of local government.
The rates retention scheme includes a safety net system to protect those authorities which, for whatever reason, see a large drop in their business rates income. The safety net ensures that no authority’s income from the rates retention scheme can drop by more than 7.5% below their baseline funding level. Authorities in that situation receive a safety net payment which increases their income to the 7.5% threshold.
Equally, there are some authorities which, because they have such a large amount of business rates income in comparison to their spending, are potentially able to generate significant sums in business rates growth. These sums may be very large when compared to the authorities’ spending requirements. Therefore, the system includes a levy on those authorities which can generate growth which is disproportionate to their spending. The income from the levy is used to fund the safety net.
These regulations make some technical changes to that levy and safety net system. First, the regulations, together with the original regulations which they amend, ensure that changes to business rate reliefs introduced by central government are not captured within the calculation of the levy or safety net. So, for example, in the Autumn Statement of last year the Government announced that small business rate relief will continue to be doubled until 31 March 2015, a change that was welcomed. This rate relief for business reduces the rates income for local government. These regulations ensure that the reduction in income from this change, and other changes introduced by the Government, are not included in the calculation of the levy and safety net.
We have done this because we will separately compensate local government for the lost rates income from central government changes to business rate reliefs. We will do this outside the rate retention scheme using a grant under Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003. Indeed, the Section 31 payments for 2013-14 have already been made, and the payments for 2014-15 will commence in April.
If we did not make the amendments in these regulations, local authorities might also receive compensation for the Autumn Statement measures through a reduced levy or a safety net payment. For example, if an authority is already on the safety net then the Autumn Statement measures would merely increase their safety net payment, and this would duplicate the compensation they are already receiving through the Section 31 grant.
So these amendments ensure that authorities will receive the correct amount of compensation for changes to business rate reliefs introduced by the Government. The amendments and the method for calculating the Section 31 grants delivering the compensation have all been agreed with local government.
The regulations also make a number of technical improvements to the original scheme. They will ensure that when an authority which is paying a levy or receiving a safety net also chooses to reduce rate bills using a local discount scheme, it will have to meet only the local share of the cost of those discounts. The original regulations required it to meet the full cost of the local discounts, which was rightly criticised by local government, so I am pleased to be able to correct it now. We are also taking the opportunity to correct an error concerning the treatment of relief in an enterprise zone and we have also included amendments to future-proof, to use the common phrase, business rate retention pools so that we do not need to return to the House with further regulations every time those pools change.
I hope that I have been able to explain the measures clearly. They are designed to ensure as far as possible simplicity of the operation of the scheme. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, for a very clear explanation of the regulations. As will be clear from our contributions in another place, we will certainly not be opposing them.
I shall come in a moment to the matter of helping to maintain the smooth operation of the current system and explore how the general progress of the new system is proceeding, but first I have one or two specific questions. On the adjustments being made to small business rate relief, is it just the extra small business rate relief for 2013-14 and 2014-15 which is being adjusted for or the totality of it? I have not worked through the formula, but I would be grateful for an answer. As for the Section 31 grant which is keeping local authorities whole, is that an exact compensation for each authority for the adjustment being made under the proposals?
The noble Baroness referred to discretionary rate relief; some of it has been amended under the provisions, but not all of it. Paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Note states:
“The 2013 regulations ensure that certain discretionary discounts (relating to not for profit organisations, community sports and social clubs, rural properties and property in enterprise zones) and hardship relief will be included for the purpose of calculating retained rates income, but that other discretionary relief will be ignored”.
Can the noble Baroness give a few examples of what is likely to be in that other discretionary relief which will be ignored?
I am trying to get a handle on what is happening to the safety net and the levy. For the two years in question, could we have an update on the amounts of the safety net now expected to be payable in comparison to the original estimate? Do we know how much of that safety net expenditure is attributable to appeals rather than to other changes in the capacity of the business rate base in any particular council? In respect of that safety net, how much is actually being paid for by the levy and how much is being top-sliced from the RSG? It is important to understand who is actually bearing the cost.
I conclude on the noble Baroness’s assertion that these regulations are helping to maintain the smooth operation of the new system. It is clear from looking at what is happening to local authority support, using the Government's own preferred measure of the spending power of the household, that the 10 most deprived authorities in England will lose 10 times the amount in spending power per household compared to the 10 least deprived local authorities between 2010-11 and 2015-16. If you look at the cumulative cut in spending power per household over that period of 2010-11 through to 2015-16, some of which I accept precedes the business rate retention scheme, for the 10 most deprived authorities there is a reduction of 25.3%, while for the 25 most deprived it is 22.5% and for the 50 most deprived it is 20.96%. However, for the 10 least deprived it is 2.54%. Can the Minister explain how these outcomes are justified? Is it an intent of policy that this be the outcome or some quirk that was not intended to happen? We have seen enough of the system now to be able to ask legitimately whether the Government really intend this redistribution. Perhaps we could understand where it is articulated because if we extrapolate forward what has happened over the past couple of years the situation for local authorities, particularly those most deprived and challenging authorities, is very dire indeed.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am certainly grateful to the noble Lord for confirming that the Opposition do not oppose these regulations. As noble Lords will be aware, when this Government came into power we made some changes to business rates. One of our various changes was having measures to reduce the burden of business rates on business; the others were to ensure that local authorities were able to enjoy the benefits of the business rates that they collected and to do so in a way that encouraged and supported growth, so that they would see the benefits and enjoy some of the proceeds of that growth. We believe that this system is working well.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked me some specific questions to which I am happy to respond. First, he asked about the Section 31 grants, which are paid to compensate local authorities for the reliefs that were announced in the Autumn Statement. I can confirm that each local authority will be compensated for the relief that they actually give. He also asked about the small business relief and the share for local government. I have been given an answer but I am struggling as I read it to recall which point the noble Lord raised. However, I think that the plus symbol in the regulations is 50% of the full cost of the small business rate relief that is the local share. Does that answer the point that the noble Lord raised? I think that he was asking about the small business relief and the half for local government share. I may need to come back to that one and perhaps clarify it.
The noble Lord asked for an update on the safety net and how that is working. In the last financial year, we have paid £69 million in safety net payments. Those numbers may change when outturn figures are available at the end of the year but, at the moment, I cannot give him any further information. I should make it clear that while I said “the last financial year”, it is the current financial year in which we are paying £69 million in safety net payments. Clearly, as we are still in that financial year I am not able to give him the final data on that number.
To go back to the question that I was struggling to answer, I think that the symbol that the noble Lord was asking about is T. In Regulation 4, there is a calculation and, in that rather scientific-looking formula in the regulations, T is 50% of the amount of small business rate relief given to local ratepayers. In other words, it is the amount of relief given as a result of the Government’s decision to double small business rate relief in 2013-14 and 2014-15. I hope that that clarifies the noble Lord’s question.
We have set aside £120 million from revenue support grant to pay for the safety net in 2014-15. If it is not needed, we will return it to authorities. I think that the noble Lord asked me how much of the safety net was being paid for out of the revenue support grant beyond that collected via the levy from those authorities that operate a surplus, if I can describe it in that way.
The noble Lord also pointed to paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum and asked for examples of other discretionary relief that will be ignored, as described in that paragraph. I spoke about other Localism Act relief schemes. These are local authority-run schemes, such as that in Croydon town centre. These regulations ensure that local authorities pay only their local share of the cost of those schemes. To expand briefly on that, we are saying—as the noble Lord understands and as I mentioned—that we have given local authorities the power to introduce their own discounts and reliefs. However, we need to ensure that, in introducing those discounts and offering those reliefs, they have to meet only 50% of the costs and not the full costs. The deal is that central government will meet half those costs, so we are amending the regulations to ensure that what we intend is borne out in practice.
More generally, to give some statistics on how the scheme is operating, our latest estimates show that business rates income in the next financial year, 2014-15, will be £22.4 billion, of which half, £11.2 billion, will flow directly to local government under the rates retention scheme. Local government will also retain a further £112 million for enterprise zones, renewable projects and collection costs. Some 92% of authorities will have more money in 2014-15 than their baseline funding level. Therefore, in only its second year, the rates retention scheme is delivering benefits for authorities that go for growth.
As to the noble Lord’s point about spending power more generally and the way in which local authorities are funded, he will know, because we have debated this in the past, that this Government are very clear that the changes we have made to how local authorities are funded represent the difference between us and the previous Government in principle. We are ensuring that areas of the country that are not currently in a position to benefit as much from this new system of going for growth are properly supported and that the grants that they receive and the spending power that is set for those areas reflect the pressures on them in terms of demands on their local services and the time that it may take them to be in a strong position to go for growth. We think that the way in which we have changed how local authorities are funded is right. We also think that the principle of encouraging growth is right.
With regard to towns and high streets, we are also making sure that local businesses have the right environment to be able to expand and flourish. The changes that we make, whether they are to business rates or other measures, such as tackling parking charges or development regulations in towns, mean that where there is potential for growth, that growth takes place and local authorities are able to benefit from it. They, in turn, can pass on the benefits to their local taxpayers.
I hope that I have been able to respond to all the points raised and I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Before the Minister sits down, I am grateful for some very detailed responses there. On the safety net for 2014-15, I think that she gave us a figure for the top-sliced amount. Can we have a figure for what is expected to be raised from the levy? Reverting to the more general point, one can see an argument in favour of encouraging people to go for growth, but if we look at what has actually happened in people’s loss of spending power, do the Government believe that it is right that the most deprived authorities should lose much more in percentage terms than the least deprived authorities? Is that an outcome of government policy which the Minister is happy with and believes is right?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
On the specific question of money expected to be raised by the levy, I shall have to follow up in writing. As to the more general point about spending power, the point that I was trying to make to the noble Lord is that this Government are ensuring that those areas of the country in greatest need are properly supported. Spend per household in those areas is higher than in those areas that are wealthier. We certainly want to ensure that our approach supports all areas of the country to grow and to receive the benefit from a stronger economy so that, in time, they are all operating at their full potential.
Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) 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 Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee do consider the draft Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2014, the Justices’ Clerks and Assistants Rules 2014 and the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Family Court: Consequential Provision) Order 2014.
As your Lordships may be aware, these statutory instruments are a significant part of a package of secondary legislation required to bring into being the new family court. Section 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides for the creation of a single family court for England and Wales. This will replace the three separate tiers of court that deal with family proceedings. The High Court will still hear family proceedings, but the intention is that in practice it will hear only those matters reserved exclusively to the High Court.
The Committee will recall that the independent Family Justice Review recommended the setting up of a single family court as the current three-tier structure is complicated, inflexible and difficult for families and other court users to navigate. Parliament then passed a law creating such a single family court in the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
The new family court will be able to sit anywhere in England and Wales and all levels of magistrates and judges will be able to sit. This includes lay magistrates, district judges, circuit judges, High Court judges and above. This should enable more effective and efficient use of judicial resources and of court staff and buildings. These instruments will go a long way in ensuring that family proceedings, particularly those involving children, will be dealt with more efficiently, with delay being the exception.
When the new family court is implemented, the family proceedings courts will no longer exist and magistrates’ courts and the new single county court will not be able to hear family proceedings. However, as the family court can sit anywhere, it can sit in the county court or magistrates’ court buildings.
I turn to the destination of appeals order. The Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 provides that if any party to proceedings in the family court is dissatisfied with the decision of the court, that party may appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Administration of Justice Act 1960 provides that if any party to proceedings in the family court is dissatisfied with a decision relating to contempt of court, that party may appeal to the Court of Appeal. The destination of appeals order aims to route appeals against the decisions of certain judges of the family court away from the Court of Appeal to the family court.
I will speak first about appeals against decisions in the family court, except those relating to contempt. The objective of this order is largely to enable replication of the current position whereby appeals from magistrates and of district judges do not go to the Court of Appeal. Rerouting appeals away from the Court of Appeal is not new. It is a well established principle that appeals should normally be heard at a lower level than the Court of Appeal. In the family court the intention is that they will be heard by a higher level of judge than the one who made the decision being appealed.
So the intention is that generally, for the single family court, the same judges will be hearing appeals as now, but they will be sitting as a family court judge, rather than as a county court judge or in the High Court. Subject to your Lordships’ approval, the effect of this instrument will be that appeals from a decision or order of the judges or officeholders listed in the order are routed away from the Court of Appeal to the family court.
For example, where there is an appeal against a decision of a bench of lay justices, or a district judge sitting in the family court, about which parent a child should live with, or whether a care order should be made in relation to a child, that appeal will be heard in the family court not the Court of Appeal. As I said earlier, this is not new. At present an appeal from the decision in family proceedings of lay justices or a district judge sitting in the magistrates’ court, or of a district judge sitting in a county court, is heard in a county court.
The level of judge that can deal with appeals routed to the family court by the destination order will be set out in a different statutory instrument under Section 31D of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. It will be made by the Lord Chief Justice, or his nominated officer, after consultation with the Family Procedure Rule Committee and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor. That instrument is not yet before Parliament, but I can reassure noble Lords that the plan is for appeals in the family court to be heard by a circuit judge, as now. However, there will be greater flexibility to ensure that judicial resources are used more efficiently and that the appeal is heard at an appropriate level. For example, there will be provision for a judge of High Court level sitting in the family court to be able to hear an appeal which would otherwise be heard by a circuit judge, where a designated family judge or a judge of High Court level considers that the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice.
Noble Lords may have also noted that this order makes provision for decisions of certain tribunal judges and court martial judges to be routed away from the Court of Appeal. I should explain that this provision seeks to future-proof the legislation. These judges cannot currently hear family proceedings, but the Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides for more flexible deployment of the judiciary to make efficient use of resources. It provides for tribunal and court martial judges to be judges in the criminal, civil and family courts and for the judges of those courts to be tribunal judges. Although there is no immediate intention to deploy these judges in the family court, they are in fact judges of the family court. It would not be appropriate for appeals against the decisions of those tribunal and court martial judges listed in the draft destination order to go to the Court of Appeal, so this order routes appeals against any decision which they may make in the family court away from the Court of Appeal to the family court.
In addition, appeals against decisions by deputy district judges and justices’ clerks will be routed away from the Court of Appeal to the family court and be dealt with by a circuit judge sitting in the family court. Appeals from decisions of judges of the family court which are not listed in the destination order will go to the Court of Appeal. For example, an appeal from the decision of a circuit judge, or of a High Court judge sitting in the family court, will go to the Court of Appeal.
The provisions of the Destination of Appeals Order 2011 which relate to routes of appeal to a judge of a county court or to decisions of the Principal Registry of the Family Division when it is treated as a county court or care centre are revoked. The remaining provisions of the 2011 order are needed for the High Court hearing family proceedings.
I turn briefly to appeals against decisions relating to contempt. Currently the route of appeal for decisions concerning contempt of court is complex. The draft order we are considering today simplifies the routes of appeal so that appeals against such decisions will follow the same route as appeals against other decisions of the family court. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 enabled us to do this so that the process is streamlined and more transparent.
I now turn to the draft Justices’ Clerks and Assistants Rules, known together as the Justices’ Clerks Rules. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 provides for justices’ clerks and their assistants to give legal advice to lay judges of the family court—as they currently do in family proceedings courts—and allows for rules to set out where they may perform functions of the family court or of a judge of the court.
Primary legislation already exists that allows for justices’ clerks and their assistants to provide legal advice and assistance in the magistrates’ courts for criminal and family proceedings, and to perform functions of the court. Existing rules made under that legislation specify which functions they can perform. For the new family court, new rules are needed to specify the functions of the family court or of judges of the court which justices’ clerks and their assistants will be authorised to carry out.
During the passage of the Bill this House expressed some concern about which functions justices’ clerks would be able to perform in the new family court. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, put down an amendment at some stage which concerned this issue. I reassure the Committee that the draft rules being considered today have been agreed by the President of the Family Division as the Lord Chief Justice’s nominee, and were developed in close consultation with the Family Procedure Rule Committee. My noble friend Lord McNally gave an indication of our plans to the House on Report, and these draft rules reflect those plans. Therefore the draft rules allow justices’ clerks to continue to perform broadly the same functions as they currently do in family proceedings courts.
However, as previously explained to the House, they will be able to perform those functions in cases allocated to any level of judge of the family court rather than just when a case is allocated to lay magistrates, which provides greater flexibility. Therefore justices’ clerks will be able to assist in progressing cases, freeing up judges to deal with the more complex parts of the case. This should increase the efficiency of the family court and help reduce delay—something that we know can adversely affect cases with children involved.
These rules will also allow justices’ clerks to perform some functions for the first time. For example, these rules will allow a justices’ clerk to perform certain functions in undefended divorce or separation cases. These cases are relatively straightforward, but because of the volume of applications they take up a significant amount of district judges’ time. Allowing justices’ clerks to perform these functions will allow judges more time to deal with more complex matters. However, I stress that justices’ clerks will not be able to deal with any case where the application for divorce or other order is defended. These will continue to be dealt with by judges of the family court.
The draft rules also provide for assistant justices’ clerks, as now, to be able to perform functions when authorised by a justices’ clerk. In all cases, justices’ clerks and their assistants are subject to a duty to refer matters back to the court if, when considering carrying out an authorised function, they consider that it would be inappropriate for them to carry out that function. This is a duty to which justices’ clerks and their assistants are currently subject in the existing rules, so it is replicated in these draft rules.
I emphasise that although justices’ clerks and assistant justices’ clerks are employed by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, they are not subject to the direction of the Lord Chancellor or any other person when carrying out the functions set out in these rules or when giving legal advice or assistance to lay judges of the family court. They act independently, just as a judge would.
These rules largely replicate the functions that justices’ clerks can currently carry out for the court. They have been carefully considered by the members of the Family Procedure Rule Committee, and the president of the Family Division, who has agreed them. The rules will allow the extensive knowledge, skills and experience of justices’ clerks to be used, over time, to free up judges to deal with more complex cases and to improve the efficiency of the courts. I would further expect this to reduce delay and provide an improved service for families who need to use the new family court.
Finally, I will consider the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Family Court: Consequential Provision) Order which makes amendments to primary legislation required because of the creation of the new family court. Already a number of changes to primary legislation in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 are required because of the creation of the new family court. However, as is often the case with a change as complex as the creation of the family court, further changes to primary legislation are required to ensure the family court can operate effectively. Section 59 of the 2013 Act gives a power to make provision in consequence of the 2013 Act. This order will be made under that power and provides for various amendments to primary legislation which are needed as a consequence of the setting up of the single family court. It mainly replaces references in primary legislation to magistrates’ courts and county courts with references to the family court, as the magistrates' courts and county courts will no longer be able to hear family proceedings when the new family court is commenced.
The amendments to primary legislation set out in the order are required to ensure that the family court can deal with matters such as the enforcement of maintenance orders, which currently are often dealt with in magistrates’ courts but in future will be dealt with in the family court. The order also removes references to matters which will no longer be dealt with in magistrates’ courts. It will enable legal aid payments to be paid for advocacy in the family court, in circumstances to be specified in legal aid legislation. It also makes other amendments to primary legislation to ensure that the family court can deal with all the matters that it needs to, such as an application from a creditor in relation to a judgment debt, for information about what enforcement action to take to recover that debt.
The instruments presented today will enable the creation of a new family court that will be able to operate more effectively and efficiently, and provide an improved service to the families who need to use the court. The creation of a simpler court structure should make it easier for those who need to use the courts to do so. They will no longer have to work out to which tier of court to submit their application. Instead they will just submit it to the family court in their area and it will be allocated to the appropriate level of judge. Cases will no longer need to be transferred between the old tiers of court. Court users should experience a more streamlined and efficient service with a significant reduction in delays. These measures, together with others, will give the judiciary, working together with Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, greater flexibility and allow it to respond to differences in demand to ensure the most efficient use of judicial and court resources.
I hope that noble Lords will feel able to approve these draft instruments so that the benefits of the single family court can be achieved. I therefore commend these draft orders to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his pithy and customarily helpful remarks. My questions stem from the most honourable tradition of asking questions in a Parliament to a Minister. Will he give specific reasons why the Government have resolved to end the interests of magistrates’ courts and county courts in these courts? That question is linked to another: shall we truly have more flexible and more efficient family courts? What were the magistrates’ courts doing wrong and what were their shortcomings? Why has it been resolved to end the historic relevance of the magistrates’ court with its three citizens? What insights have informed these decisions? Can we be absolutely assured that in the new arrangements the primacy of the interests of the child will be always borne in mind? Is that a reason for this large change? Surely we can raise this matter in this Committee and surely it has always informed Ministers and those who advise them.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by breaking the habits of my three and a half year parliamentary career and not only thanking the Minister for the clarity of his exposition—to which we are accustomed—but also confirming that most of what is in these instruments is agreed by the Opposition.
I reassure my noble friend, who has just spoken, about some of his concerns. The family court concept does not exclude the magistrates’ court and lay justices; it includes them. They become part of a virtually seamless provision for dealing with family court matters. Therefore, the magistracy will remain involved. With regard to my noble friend’s last question to the Minister, the Minister may or may not be able to answer it but I can, because I have put the same question to the Magistrates’ Association. It is content with this afternoon’s legislation and has no objections to any of the proposals.
Lord Beecham
I can report to the Committee only what I have heard directly from the Magistrates’ Association. I have not heard from the Justices’ Clerks’ Society because I did not contact it. The Magistrates’ Association has no reservations about these matters.
Lord Jones
But is my noble friend speaking on behalf of the Magistrates’ Association and is he giving guarantees?
Lord Beecham
No, I cannot speak on behalf of the association. I am not, as it were, briefed by it or retained by it, unfortunately, but I assure my noble friend that it has communicated with me in the sense that I have just described. However, other reservations that my noble friend has expressed, which are not, strictly speaking, germane to the matters that we are debating this afternoon, raise concerns which I share and which, indeed, I have raised from time to time. They are also concerns which the Magistrates’ Association shares—that is, the current size of Benches that have been amalgamated and the position now occupied by the justices’ clerks on those Benches. The clerks are no longer responsible to magistrates but are responsible upwards, as it were, to the Ministry of Justice.
My noble friend rightly refers to the accessibility of courts and the closure of court buildings. However, one matter to which he has not referred but which has caused concern, which I have voiced previously, is the apparent growth in the role of full-time or part-time professional district judges as opposed to lay magistrates. There is concern about the imbalance that that is creating. Nowadays, some cases are dealt with virtually exclusively by district judges and the lay judges have a diminished role in consequence. These are genuine concerns which I think we need to explore further, but not for the purposes of the legislation today.
I have in the course of my 40-odd years—some of them rather odd indeed—practised as a solicitor and have spent much time briefing counsel. I am experiencing something of a role reversal today, because I have benefited from briefing from a distinguished family law practitioner, Michael Horton. I do not know whether he is somebody with whom the Minister is acquainted but he is an experienced counsel dealing with family matters. He raises a number of issues which do not undermine the thrust of the regulations that we are discussing but in some instances suggest that a little further clarification is required.
The first issue relates to the appeal to the family court. Where, within the family court, does the appeal lie? In other words, who in the family court will deal with the appeal? The Civil Procedure Rules lay out a definition of who will hear appeals. At the moment, it appears that a new practice direction to the Family Procedure Rules will identify the destination of appeals—that is, not just the broad destination of the family court, which, as I have just emphasised, reaches from the magistracy right through, ultimately, to the Court of Appeal—but what tier of the judiciary will deal with it? I understood the Minister to say that that either has happened or is about to happen—that the rules will be promulgated. They are to come into force in six or seven weeks’ time. I take it that they have been the subject of consultation and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that. If, by any chance, they have not yet been the subject of consultation, I strongly urge that they be made so.
Another issue raised is not a criticism at all but it arises from a welcome change to which I do not think the Minister specifically referred. It is the possibility of funding emerging from the change in rules which will allow payments to be made to charities, to be ordered by the family court. I am not quite clear of the intention here. but one hopes that such payments could cover the advice services provided by voluntary organisations to those engaged in family disputes. It would be helpful to have clarification of whether that is in fact the intention. It could make a significant difference in facilitating support for litigants who are not able to pay for or obtain legal aid for advice, as would be the case in a number of instances, if voluntary organisations could be the recipients of money as the result of such an order.
Lord Faulks
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for his contribution to the debate, and to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his observations.
The central question behind the speech given by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, was, “Why do we need this reorganisation of a family court, and why ignore the experience there was in the magistrates’ court?”, and that we should take into account in particular the convenience for local people to use their magistrates’ court. I quite understand that concern. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, quite rightly said, we will not lose that expertise. Magistrates will still deal with family proceedings, but within the overall context of a family court. Previously we had these various tiers, but now we have a unified court. However, they will all be the family court, albeit some will sit in magistrates’ courts, some in county courts and others will physically sit in the High Court, depending on the allocation and the level of the dispute. So that much-valued expertise will not be lost. What is intended, as I indicated in my opening remarks, is that there should be increased flexibility and a better use of appropriate judicial resources. I am not sure that those qualified lawyers who act as justices’ clerks would welcome being described as a lower level of judge, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, described them. They are very often qualified and, if not qualified, have a considerable amount of relevant experience, and they will not be given any tasks that they are performing now and will perform in future unless it is clear that they have relevant experience and expertise.
The creation of the family court was recommended by the family justice review. It was considered that the new structure would limit delays and simplify the whole question of people who go to their local area with a particular issue, which will then be allocated to the appropriate level of court. It will not be the enemy of localism, which I think was the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jones.
Lord Jones
Will the Minister write on those questions that he may not be able to field, such as the ones that I have posed?
Lord Faulks
Yes, I will certainly write in so far as I do not answer all the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Beecham. I fear that I will not be able to answer all the points, but I hope that I can at least reassure the noble Lord that the magistracy will still be involved in the matter, as it was before, and will not lose its expertise—it will simply be called something different. There is some reallocation of its tasks, but not a loss of its important role.
The closure of courts generally is a different issue from that which we are considering. There are always difficult arguments on the cost of having a court that is infrequently used as against the convenience for local people. We are of course anxious that the quality of decision-making should be high and that there should be convenience, and we do not anticipate that there will be a radical change in individual cases. The noble Lord mentioned the position in Llanelli, where he feared that there would not be enough local expertise. I am assured that there would not be a radical transfer unless the court service was satisfied that there was the appropriate level of expertise in a local area.
I turn to issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He said that he was concerned that there had not yet been a specific route for the appeals identified. I indicated in the course of my remarks that they would be set out in a statutory instrument under Section 31D of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, which would be made by the Lord Chief Justice or his nominated officer after consultation with the Family Procedure Rule Committee and with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor. The rules are made with the consultation of the committee, which includes expert practitioners, justices’ clerks and judges. It also includes a representative of the court users, so it should be possible before the appropriate tier of appeal is finalised for all interested parties to have an opportunity to have their views reflected in the designation. Although I understand the noble Lord’s anxiety, it is unlikely that he will find the organisation of appeals in any sense out of sync with the construction of appeals that exist generally in civil procedure—that is, there will be an appeal from a court to a higher level of court and, depending on where the initial allocation begins, a superior court will then come to consider the relevant appeal.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked a question about the consultation with the Magistrates’ Association, which was very helpfully answered by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who was able to confirm that it had been consulted. The statutory obligation was to consult the family practitioners’ rules committee, which comprises representatives of the lay magistracy, justices’ clerks and a number of judges, so it would have been included in any event in that consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about payments to charity. I am told that the amendment to Section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 will mean that the family court will be able to order a party to make a payment to a charity. This mirrors the current position in the civil courts and applies where a party has been represented free of charge. It will be for the court in the individual case to determine to which charity the payment should be made. I hope that that answers that point. The noble Lord also made a point about the increase in costs and the fees for divorce going up. Yes, if it is dealt with at a lower level then I understand his point about that. A final decision has not yet been made on whether to increase the fees for divorce, although this matter was consulted on. I will certainly take back his observations.
Perhaps I have not quite sufficiently answered the question about the general sufficiency of the numbers of justices’ clerks. It is actually the case that the assistant justices’ clerks will be doing most of the work in courts. There are about 1,400 of them and the justices’ clerks are managers, so there is one in each area. There are 26. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has assured Ministers that there will be sufficient justices’ clerks to perform the various functions which they are able to do as a result of this designation.
I think that I have answered most of the questions—no, I have not.
Lord Beecham
There is just the question of interest, upon which the Minister might care to write to me. I presume that he has not been briefed on that yet by those behind him.
Lord Faulks
The position is that I cannot give an answer, I am disappointed to say, but we will definitely write on that issue. I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with the answer.
I am grateful for the helpful questions from noble Lords and, notwithstanding the reservations in the points that have been helpfully made, I hope that your Lordships will agree that these draft instruments are an important step in simplifying the family court system and making it more accessible to families.
Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Family Court: Consequential Provision) 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 Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Family Court: Consequential Provision) Order 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Justices’ Clerks and Assistants Rules 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 Justices’ Clerks and Assistants Rules 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Social Security (Maternity Allowance) (Participating Wife or Civil Partner of Self-employed Earner) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Maternity Allowance) (Participating Wife or Civil Partner of Self-employed Earner) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, in order to make the best use of parliamentary time there are two instruments for debate today. I have agreed with my noble friend Lord Faulks also to present an instrument which falls within the remit of his department, the Ministry of Justice. I will speak also to the draft Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which bring forward a measure that is consequential on my department’s regulations. Both regulations were laid before both Houses on 21 January 2014 and are intended to come into effect from 1 April 2014.
I am satisfied that the Social Security (Maternity Allowance) (Participating Wife or Civil Partner of Self-employed Earner) Regulations 2014 is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Likewise, my noble friend Lord Faulks and I are satisfied that the Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 is also compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
First, the Social Security (Maternity Allowance) (Participating Wife or Civil Partner of Self-employed Earner) Regulations 2014 provide for a maternity allowance to be made available to women who are neither employed nor self-employed in their own right, although they regularly take part in activities related to the business of their self-employed spouse or civil partner. They must be neither a partner nor an employee of the business concerned.
These regulations are being introduced in order to fully comply with European directive 2010/41, which was adopted on 24 June 2010 following negotiation between member states. The directive assures equal treatment between men and woman who are self-employed. It protects self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood, together with women who are not self-employed, who habitually participate in the activities of their self-employed spouse or civil partner’s business.
The UK already complies with most of the directive through existing equality legislation, primarily the Equality Act 2010. However, Article 8 of the directive legislates for a maternity allowance to be paid to self-employed women and spouses or civil partners who habitually participate in the activities of a self-employed worker. This is required to enable them to interrupt their activities as a result of pregnancy or motherhood. We already provide a maternity allowance to self-employed women.
Women who contribute to their spouse or civil partner’s business by regularly helping out in an unpaid capacity could bring themselves within coverage of the maternity allowance and other social protection by becoming partners in, or employees of, the business. There are strong business and social incentives for doing this, which include tax benefits for the business and greater social protection for the woman. However, for women who do not wish to take these steps we must bring forward these regulations to ensure that we fully comply with the directive. If we were not to bring these regulations forward, we would not be fully compliant with the directive, which would put the UK at significant risk of being subjected to infraction proceedings by the European Commission. This would attract an initial lump sum fine estimated at around €11 million with a daily accrual until we are fully compliant.
The regulations will provide a maternity allowance to women who are due to give birth on or after 27 July this year and regularly assist in the self-employed business of their spouse or civil partner but are neither employees nor business partners. For the first time, spouses or civil partners of the self-employed worker who help in the business and receive no income will be able to receive a maternity allowance enabling them to take a break in their activities as a result of pregnancy.
In line with the Government’s objective to avoid the gold-plating of EU legislation, we will not go beyond the minimum requirements of European directives. This means that benefit will be payable at the weekly rate of £27 for a maximum of 14 weeks. This reflects the lowest rate of maternity allowance that is currently payable to working mothers on a very low income to be paid for the minimum duration specified by the directive.
This rate is less beneficial than the standard rate of maternity allowance currently awarded for up to 39 weeks to women who are eligible because they are employed or self-employed in their own right—the standard rate from April 2014 being £138.18. The higher rate and longer payment period of maternity allowance is intended to provide a measure of earnings replacement to enable women to take a break in their occupation at the end of their pregnancy or soon after childbirth. It would not be right to make a corresponding award of maternity allowance to women who have no earnings to replace. A number of stakeholders have been notified of this forthcoming change: for example, Netmums, Mumsnet, and Maternity Action. Maternity Action has advised that it supports the change and will help us to raise awareness of it if it is passed by your Lordships’ House.
I trust that your Lordships will agree that the regulations will help women who are pregnant or have recently given birth where, prior to that, they have lent unpaid support to their spouse or civil partner in helping them to build and maintain a self-employed business.
I turn to the draft Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2014. Those draft regulations amend the Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) Regulations 2013 that came into force on 1 April 2013. They add the maternity allowance being introduced for participating spouses or civil partners of self-employed earners to the list of prescribed benefits in the schedule to the 2013 regulations.
If an individual is in receipt of a prescribed benefit, the director of legal aid casework in the Legal Aid Agency, in assessing an individual’s income for the purpose of the legal aid financial means test, may request information about the benefit from various other government departments, including the amount that the individual is receiving. Having accurate information about the financial resources of an individual who is applying for or in receipt of legal aid is an important part of ensuring that only those eligible for legal aid receive it, and that those who can afford to contribute to the cost of their legal representation are made to do so. I commend the instruments to the Committee.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I support the social security regulation which we are debating today—not just because it avoids an €11 million fine. I think it is a good thing in its own right. For once, we have a welcome change to the benefits system in that it is beginning genuinely to reflect the diversity of people’s lives and the lives of women in the workforce. That is a very good thing indeed. It is bringing a new group of women, predominantly from the very small, micro-business sector, within the ambit of maternity benefit. I just wish that the gold-plating had been left in place just on this one occasion so that they could have had a benefit more in line with everyone else.
I want to ask two questions. The first is about disseminating information, because this is a very difficult group to reach. They do not tend to be members of chambers of commerce, and that sort of thing. I do not have a particular answer, but I wanted to put in the plea that all efforts are made to ensure that women who are likely to benefit actually know about it and are able to. We hope that the Government’s new enterprise allowance scheme will be successful, so we could have even more very small businesses starting up in the coming year or so, so we need to get on top of how we can ensure that women know that these benefits are available.
Secondly, I welcome the discussions on shared parental leave—I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has been very keen on this and it has some support within government. It would provide welcome flexibility, but I am curious as to how these arrangements might work if we have shared parental leave. With those questions, I welcome the instrument.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation and I look forward to hearing the answers to those two excellent questions. I do not propose to ask any questions about the second order, as I accept the Minister’s assurance that it is consequential upon the first. However, I should like to ask a few questions so as to understand better the implications of the first order, relating to maternity allowance.
The first question relates to the point that has just been made about the rate being so low. The standard rate of maternity allowance is £136 a week, or 90% of average weekly earnings, for up to 39 weeks. In this case, the Government decided to settle on £27 a week for 14 weeks. I think I heard the Minister say that the aim of the allowance was to enable women who regularly help in the business of a spouse or civil partner to take a break from their activities towards the end of a pregnancy or the start of motherhood. Have the Government made any assessment of whether the amount of money involved is such that it is likely to make taking that break possible when otherwise it would not have been?
Secondly, the Explanatory Note says that 1,300 women will be affected by the provisions at an estimated cost of £0.5 million. No impact assessment was carried out, so we do not know whether the Government considered other approaches. Clearly, there is quite a wide range between what the Government are doing and an allowance that is fully gold-plated. Did the Government consider bringing this in at an intermediate level and, if so, what kind of cost would have been implied?
Next, I should be interested in understanding what conditions a claimant would have to meet to qualify for maternity allowance under these circumstances. We have had a question about shared parental leave. I should also be interested in knowing what happens to someone who is adopting a child rather than giving birth, as the regulations are specifically about giving birth or having just given birth. Looking at the regulations, I do not think that someone in these circumstances would be entitled to statutory adoption pay, so would they be entitled to maternity allowance? Similarly, what happens if the child is stillborn or dies immediately after birth? Certainly, I think that SMP is payable if a child is stillborn after 24 weeks, but is there a read-across to this provision?
I was pleased to hear the question about communication because I was going to ask something similar. The Minister made the very good point that there may be strong reasons why women in these circumstances may be better off being paid by the business and being able to pay national insurance. I am very conscious that the Pensions Bill is going through the House at the moment. Of course, if a woman in these circumstances does not end up with 35 years of national insurance payments in her own right, she may find that when she comes to retire she is not entitled to the new single-tier pension, and in future she will not be able to claim on her husband’s contributions either. Therefore, when the Minister looks at the communications campaign, I wonder whether anything can be done to make sure that the opportunity is taken to communicate to those women so that they understand the consequences of not paying national insurance and of not coming within the national insurance and tax system.
Finally, I have a practical question. Can the Minister explain the tax and tax credits treatment of these benefits and say whether there is any passporting or link across to any other benefits as a result of receiving this maternity allowance?
Lord Bates
I thank my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market for her contribution and I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for raising these points. Some very good questions have been asked and I shall do my best to answer them.
My noble friend Lady Scott asked whether women getting this maternity allowance will have access to shared parental leave and a pay scheme. The answer is no, and I am sorry to be disappointing. The statutory shared parental leave and pay provisions are designed for employed couples to share the care of their child. It would be available to eligible women who are entitled to maternity leave, statutory maternity pay or maternity allowance because they are employed or self-employed earners—that is the key word. Therefore, women receiving this form of maternity allowance will not have access to that scheme as they will be neither employed nor self-employed in their own right.
My noble friend Lady Scott and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked how we will encourage take-up of the allowance, and we talked about some of the publicity which is being received. We have identified stakeholder groups relating to both self-employment and maternity, and they have been informed of the change. They include Maternity Action, Netmums, Mumsnet, Bounty, Sands, Citizens Advice, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association and HMRC. We will be publicising the qualified conditions and the claim process on direct.gov.uk, as well as providing relevant guidance and claim forms. Needless to say, if there are any specific organisations which the noble Baroness thinks it would be helpful to include in that list, we will be delighted to hear from her.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. She asked about the sad cases where there is a stillborn child. The mother would still be entitled to maternity allowance, in the way that statutory maternity pay applies at present. These provisions do not extend to adoption.
Baroness Sherlock
Before the Minister leaves that point, I understand the Government’s argument that they do not wish to gold-plate anything that comes from Europe. I was pushing him slightly because he gave two different reasons for doing this. One was not to gold-plate; the other was to give the women an opportunity to take a break from their activities. My question was whether he had done any assessment of whether the level and duration of the payment would be adequate to meet that objective.
Lord Bates
The answer is that no such assessment was undertaken.
The noble Baroness asked whether this maternity allowance will passport through to other benefits. It is up to each provider of those passported benefits to decide whether to extend their passported benefits to this group. Of course, in the same group of regulations we are talking about changes being made to the legal aid provision, so there is some element of a knock-on effect to that. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken.
Baroness Sherlock
I am happy for the Minister to write to me but I asked about the tax treatment of the allowance and the tax credits position. He may feel free to write if that is easier.
Lord Bates
I apologise to the noble Baroness. I will follow that up in writing.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank them for their interest in the debate and take the opportunity to say that I hope we agree that the Social Security (Maternity Allowance) (Participating Wife or Civil Partner of Self-employed Earner) Regulations 2014 ensure that those women who participate in the business of their self-employed spouse or civil partner can receive maternity allowance to enable them to interrupt their activities due to pregnancy or motherhood, and that the Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 contribute to ensuring that those entitled to help with their legal aid costs receive that help, while those who can afford to pay, do so.
Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legal Aid (Information about Financial Resources) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2014 and the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2014 were laid before the House on 27 January 2014 and I am satisfied that they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I start by touching briefly on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order, which provides for contracted-out defined benefits schemes to increase their members’ guaranteed minimum pensions that accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 2.7%, which is in line with inflation as at September 2013. As noble Lords will be aware, we are not here to discuss the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Order 2014, which was made on 24 January. The rates increased by 1% in that order were debated in Parliament during the passage of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013.
Turning to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, I would like to start with the increase in the basic state pension. One of this Government’s first acts was to restore the earnings link to the basic state pension. Indeed, we went a step further and secured a triple lock for pensioners—a commitment from the Government to increase the basic state pension each year by earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. This year, as prices were greater than average earnings and 2.5%, the basic state pension will increase by CPI at 2.7%. The new rate of basic state pension will be £113.10 a week for a single person, an increase of £2.95 from last year. This means that from April 2014 the basic state pension is forecast to be around 18% of average earnings, a higher share of average earnings than at any time since 1992. Our triple lock commitment means that someone on a full basic state pension can expect to receive £440 a year more than if it had been up-rated by earnings since the start of this Parliament.
On pension credit, we have taken an important decision to ensure that the poorest pensioners are able to benefit from the effects of our triple lock. That means that, rather than rising in line with earnings at 1.2%—the minimum required by legislation—the standard minimum guarantee credit in pension credit will be increased by 2% so that the poorest pensioners benefit from the full cash value of the increase in basic state pension. Single people will receive an increase of £2.95 a week while couples will receive an increase of £4.45 a week. Consistent with our approach last year, the resources needed to pay for that above-earnings increase to the standard minimum guarantee have been found by increasing the savings credit threshold, which means that those with higher levels of income will see less of an increase.
I can confirm that additional state pensions will rise in line with inflation at 2.7% in 2014-15. That means that the total state pension increase for someone with a full basic pension and average additional pension will be around £196 a year. The decisions we have taken on pensioners reflect the Government’s belief that even in difficult economic times it is important to protect those who are less able to increase their spending power.
That belief is reflected in our decision to ensure that those benefits that reflect additional costs because of disability will be protected and will be increased by the full value of CPI at 2.7%. These include the personal independence payment, disability living allowance, attendance allowance, incapacity benefit, disability premiums in working-age benefits, the support component of the employment and support allowance, and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit. That is also true of the carer’s allowance and the carer premium, both of which will be uprated in line with inflation.
In conclusion, I ask your Lordships to note that at a time when the nation’s finances remains under real pressure, the Government will be spending an extra £3.3 billion in 2014-15. Of that, about £2.7 billion is for the state pension and over £600 million will go to people of working age, with nearly £600 million of those increases going to disabled people and their carers.
The uprating commitment I have outlined today will give real support to the poorest and most vulnerable in society, ensuring that people who are least able to change their incomes are protected against increases in the cost of living. On that basis, I commend the orders to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have a number of questions. First, I welcome the triple lock. This is the first time that we have seen prices as the lock that has come into play, which means that pensioners will always benefit from the best of the three options. This is the first time we have seen one of the three locks.
I will spend a few moments on the rationale behind the 1%, 2% and 0.7% for the pensions and other matters. This is really about what is contained in the Government Actuary’s report. For the first time, we see from the Government Actuary what the state of the fund is—the fund from which these benefits will be paid—not just for this year but through to 2018-19. I believe that this is the first time we have been able to have those projections. The report clearly shows that there are a number of difficult years to come, in particular 2015-16. Next year the actuary projects that the Government will have to put in £8 billion extra in order to keep the fund at its one-sixth level of what goes in and what comes out, and what is left in the fund. However, the last table of the Government Actuary’s report shows that the following year will be even more difficult. Can we have some comparison for benefits’ sake?
I will be quite happy if my noble friend wishes to send me information about this or to write to me about it. As we are projecting forward six years to 2018-19, can we have the figures showing how much has had to be contributed in the past 10 years, say, so that each year we can see what the graph or the direction of travel is? Quite clearly, it is not the usual case that the Government have to top up the fund to achieve that one-sixth balance. It might be useful to know how often that happens and what the projections are for the future.
I have just two short questions, one of which relates to the implementation dates in the order. I should probably know the answer to this question, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer it, although it is a question similar to, “Why do we always have elections on a Thursday?”. For the dates of implementation, which are contained within this order, we have 1, 7, 9 and 10 April. I know that it does not mean very much if someone has to wait a week longer for their benefit to come through, but why is it not possible to have a single implementation date at the beginning of the financial year, or is there some administrative reason for that?
My second and final question relates to the investments in the national insurance fund. I noticed that the projection from the Government Actuary is that they will fall from £127 million to £90 million. If the investments made £127 million last year, which obviously supported the amount of money that could be put into benefits without having to top them up from the Treasury, why do we see a lower projection in the coming year when all the signs are that investment opportunities are greater in the coming year than they were in the past year? I should be grateful for some explanation, but I will be perfectly happy if my noble friend wants to do that for me in writing.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord German, who asked some pertinent questions. I want to take a slightly different approach and put these uprating orders into the context of a longer timescale. As I think we all know, changes to upratings will generate more savings for the department over the middle to longer term than any other single change, so it is important for Parliament to stay abreast of what is going on.
My first point is about process. In the old days—he says, reverting immediately to nostalgic mode—this used to be a huge debate. My noble friend the Minister will know, because he was there and was briefly a Minister, that the uprating order was a big event then, when we were spending millions, not billions as now. There was a full Chamber in the House of Commons and those numbers were keenly contested. It has now come to this, at the fag end of a late Monday, with the Minister and two or three lonely survivors discussing these very important matters. We must make sure that the parliamentary process is maintained because the scrutiny of these matters is important.
The process which we now have is a bit confusing to me. The Minister is absolutely right that the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013 basically takes out the working-age benefits from consideration this afternoon. I do not think that is for all time coming but I am not sure. I assume that the 2013 Act will render it nugatory to discuss working-age benefits until that Act falls away, after its third year. Presumably we will then go back to the uprating system as before. I am also a bit nervous about losing sight of tax credits and child credit Treasury-type benefits, which in the old days were also all subsumed into the one comprehensive debate.
I am even more confused about the annually managed expenditure proposals which the Chancellor has been talking about. I am always suspicious about Chancellors talking about social security department business as, in my experience, they invariably make a hash of it. I would stiffen the Minister’s resolve to resist these territorial ambitions from the Treasury, which are very hard to contain. I can see some heads nodding, so I am obviously on a strong point there.
The point that I am making is a simple one. In Parliament, we should insist on being able to have proper opportunities in good time to look at the comprehensive changes being made, even though they are getting more complicated, so that we can satisfy ourselves that at least we know what is going on and can make the best points to the Minister and his future heirs and successors. I am fearful that this is becoming so piecemeal that it is getting difficult to do. That is my first point and I suspect that the Minister will not disagree with it.
I would like to know what the additional costs of these orders are. They are basically pension-orientated. I have nothing whatever to say about the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order. I have never had anything to say about that order; it goes on and it goes up, and that is fine. However, my impression is that there is £3 billion or so involved in increased spend and I would like to know to what extent, over the period of this order, that is derived from an increased caseload. In the middle to longer term, the demographics will obviously change regarding the proportion of the population. There will be more and more pensioners, so we will have more and more trouble paying for them, which is perhaps part of the answer to the important question that my noble friend Lord German asked. I would not mind being copied into any answer that he gets because it is a very important question. However, the caseload is bound to increase, so if that number increases, the costs will get bigger as the numbers get higher. I understand this, perhaps, more than most. As of the fiscal year 2014-15, we spend £211,000 million each year, every year, which is a serious sum of money. We really need to make sure that we understand how we are spending it and that we get control and make it as effective as we can. I should like to know the cost of these orders, just to keep track of the expenditure.
The Section 150 duty on the Secretary of State in the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is that he considers and reviews, and, in a kind of Delphic way, the answer comes out as CPI. I hope that the Minister would be able to give me some reassurances, after some of the evidence coming out from the archbishop, now cardinal, and the powerful intervention that he made about destitution. I do not think that he is right to say that the entire safety net has been withdrawn, but he is a serious man, and the Church of England and other churches are beginning to pick up the fact that some serious things are emerging in their localities. I think that they are correct about that, although I would not go as far as to say that the safety net was being removed. But that evidence is the kind of thing that I would hope somebody in Parliament would put in the box for the Secretary of State when he did the annual review.
There are other political issues as well. People like myself cannot understand why universal benefits for pensioners, in these circumstances when austerity is upon us, are not in the mix and being considered as possible savings. The fact that I get a winter fuel allowance is not appropriate to the financial circumstances that we are in. That is the kind of thing which I hoped the review would have looked at.
I was very struck by the Barnardo’s report just before last Christmas about the emergency food services now being used. The Minister and I have both watched these issues for a long time but I have never seen evidence as cogent as that—750,000 families. The emotional cost of rolling up and asking for food must be enormous. That is new and it cannot be ignored.
Finally—and I think that this is more hidden—the impact on local authorities’ service provision is beginning to be bigger than I have ever seen before in my past experience. That is characterised perhaps by the local welfare assistance fund, which I think the Local Government Association was right to complain that the Government seemed to be withdrawing funding from. These are the kinds of things which I hope the Minister will be able to tell me were thought through carefully in the department before the Secretary of State discharged his duty under the 1992 Act, because they are bits of evidence that are more cogent than I have seen in the recent past—and I have a longer list, but I shall spare him.
I am a member of the council of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and I want to make a point about the 2.7% and CPI. I guess that the Government had no option but to go for CPI, because RPI is not appropriate any more—if discredited is too strong a word—and I can understand that. But there are problems with CPI in how it differentially impacts on low-income and high-income families. My speech will be a lot shorter, if the Minister says that he will read, or get somebody in his department to read, the IFS Green Budget of February 2014. Chapter 6 of that document says that,
“the average price level faced by households in the bottom quintile rose by 7.1 percentage points more than that faced by households in the top quintile between 2007-08 and 2013-14”.
That is a long stretch and 7.1% is a big figure. That is at page 126, in chapter 6 of the IFS Green Budget 2014. That figure struck me.
The other side of the question, looking at inflation, is on page 138 under the heading “Group specific inflation rates”. It states:
“Figure 6.10 shows that inflation rates since the recession have tended to be higher than average for low-income households … The average rate of inflation experienced by low-income households over the period 2008–09 to 2013–14 was 3.4%, compared with 2.4% for high-income households”.
These are snapshot quotes and you need to read the whole chapter to get the sense of the work that has been done by Oxford Economics, which did this work. This is very compelling evidence that it is dangerous just to go from mean average figures of inflation and prices because they impact differentially on different households and in different proportions of spend within family budgets, because lower-income people spend a lot more money on energy, food and the like than they do on mortgage interest payments. If I can have an agreement that somebody will read chapter 6, I will go on to my next point.
Although there is only a glancing reference in these regulations to universal credit and personal independence payments—it is the first time we have seen uprating orders for those two benefits and I wish them both well—the Minister and I both know that there is some controversy and uncertainty about the programmes and timetables for implementation for these benefits. I am sure that that will become clear during the period of the duration of these orders. Can the Minister say anything, even if it is in writing, about the timetable for it? The press comments and indeed the ministerial comments that have been made about the Atos origin contract for PIP understandably have caused a lot of uncertainty.
I have always believed that we have a problem in this country with the capacity of professional occupational health specialists. The Government are suffering from that, and any Government suffer from it. If you do not have the professionals—and it is a very skilled thing to do properly—any company, Atos or otherwise, will struggle to carry the weight of these hugely important and very onerous contracts. Can the Minister give us any comfort about the upratings contained in these orders as it relates to the personal independence payment and the timetable for dealing with Atos? Similarly, there are uprating elements in these orders about universal credit. If the Minister could give us any comfort on the timetable for universal credit and the ICT contract, that would be very welcome.
Finally, I noticed in the Explanatory Memorandum—they are always very instructive and helpful for these things, and I pay tribute to the poor people who have to write them—that the deductions for service charges on housing benefits for energy charges is 7.7% in the year to September 2013. I understand what service charges are and what rental agreement deductions are in housing benefit, and that they are not new. However, 7.7% is a big percentage. It might not be much—a couple of pounds—but that is a big change. I was grateful that the Explanatory Memorandum took the trouble to point it out to us. I hope that the Minister will take that back and satisfy himself that that is not an outlier figure as regards 2.7% increases here and there. Particularly when energy costs have gone up so dramatically over the recent past—there have been some quite significant increases—7.7% is striking. If the Minister can go away and satisfy himself that that is not a relative punitive increase in a deduction, I would be very grateful.
My main concern is that Parliament, over the distance, is able to track low-income households in particular. As we go into fiscal consolidation—I am sure we will and I hope we do, the sooner the better—differentially, as incomes go up the thrust in controlling the benefits spend keeps benefits down. Incomes go up and the difference gets too great. As parliamentarians—and I know that my noble friend takes an interest in these things—we are bound to make sure that we do everything we can to protect the poor.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the orders, and the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Kirkwood, for their contributions. I would like to add myself to the circulation list for this exciting reply to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord German. Is the Minister willing to place a copy in the Library, given that it might be of interest in years to come? They are very good questions.
I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, that Parliament retains a sense of the importance of these orders. The decisions taken here by Parliament will affect the living standards of millions of people over the next year. They really matter, and if we ever get to the stage where we stop taking them seriously we will be failing in our duty. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, who turns out every year, come rain or shine, although I am disappointed that he had nothing to say about the GMP. I look forward to a year when I find something to say to it, but I am not going to ask any questions about it either.
Much has been made of the fact that the Government are uprating pensions by the triple lock. That is welcome as far as it goes. The comments about RPI notwithstanding, will the Minister acknowledge that the triple lock has so far been less generous than the RPI uprating it replaced? It was not used in the first year. I notice that my right honourable friend Stephen Timms pointed out, when this order was debated in another place, that the RPI last September was 3.2%, whereas the pension uprating delivered by the order, as the Minister said, is 2.7%. My right honourable friend said that the triple lock has delivered a lower uprating than the previous formula in each of the three years it has been used. The effect of that is that in RPI terms it is a real-terms cut for the third year in a row.
More concerning is that the standard minimum guarantee element of pension credit is to be increased by only 2%. This reduces both its real-terms value and its value relative to the basic state pension. One of the consequences must be that the poorest pensioners find their pension income falling in real terms. The Minister, I am sure, can confirm that. I would be very interested in the Minister’s answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, about cost. If the value of some of these benefits is falling, but the spend is rising, is caseload the reason? I would be interested to know.
The decision on pension credit is significant not just for those currently dependent on pension credit, but potentially for all those who will receive the new single-tier pension, which is due to be introduced in April 2016, if the Pensions Bill currently going through the House receives Royal Assent. The Government have signalled, during our deliberations on that Bill, that they propose to introduce the new single-tier pension at a rate above the prevailing rate of pension credit. By reducing the value of pension credit in real terms, are the Government not giving themselves the option of introducing the single-tier pension at a starting rate lower than might have been the case had pension credit maintained its value in real terms?
Can the Minister help me on another point? As the premiums payable to pensioners with working age benefits will be uprated in line with pension credit rates, does that also mean that they too will face a real-terms cut? Will the Minister confirm that? Also, what assessment has he made of the impact on pensioners with small savings of the Government’s decision to increase the savings credit thresholds by 4.4%, some way above inflation? I know that the Government are keen for people to do the right thing and to save, but the reason for introducing a savings credit was so that people who had put money aside would still find themselves better off than those who had not. Will the Minister explain the Government’s thinking on that?
I also have some questions about process. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood: I fear that I may have lost track of some uprating that should have happened. If I tell the Minister what I think is happening, perhaps he will correct me where I go wrong. As I understand it, the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Order 2014 uprates by 1% those on benefits covered by the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act. The protected benefits are covered by this order. So what happens to tax credits? Where did they get uprated? Where was the benefit cap uprated? I know that it has been, but I am not quite sure where that happened. Also, are all the elements of universal credit uprated in this order and, if so, where are the work allowances uprated? I could not see them.
I have two final questions. First, on childcare, it seems to me that the childcare element of universal credit is not being uprated at all. Can the Minister explain why not? If it is not being uprated at all, that is a significant real-terms cut. The last annual childcare cost survey in 2013 from the Family and Childcare Trust—what used to be the Daycare Trust—found that costs had risen by an average of 6% the previous year, more than double the rate of inflation. If the decision is made to cut that childcare element in real terms, coming on top of the Government’s decision to cut the proportion of childcare costs in universal credit to 70%, will that not have a significant impact on the ability of working parents to afford childcare? There was no impact assessment, and I was not able to work out what the effect of that was. Have the Government made any assessment of the impact on working parents of that decision on childcare and, if so, what is it?
Finally, I should be very interested to hear the answers to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, on PIP, for example, where I have grave concerns about the implementation. The recent report is not encouraging in that respect. Also, I should like to understand to what extent, if at all, the Secretary of State is using discretion in making judgments about the appropriate levels of uprating, given the concern that abounds now about the use of food banks and the extent of poverty among people who are in receipt of benefits.
Lord Bates
I thank noble Lords for their questions. All Members who have spoken are renowned experts in the field. Until a few months ago, I was joining from the Back Benches in scrutiny of such orders, so I sense the expertise that lies behind the pertinent questions which have been asked. I was particularly struck by my noble friend Lord Kirkwood’s question about how small is the audience for a mere £3.3 billion of taxpayers’ money to go to the poorest in society. That is a worthy point to make, and it would be absolutely ungallant of me to point out the level of participation from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the absence of participation from the Opposition Benches.
Lord Bates
We are a coalition—we share the point. The point is that I think that there is a genuine cross-party support. For example, the triple lock on pensions is welcome, it is working and it is delivering real-terms increases to pensioners.
If I may, I will go through the points raised in the order in which they were raised. My noble friend Lord German raised the question of the Treasury grant to the National Insurance Fund. It is not a question of the National Insurance Fund running out of money. Making provision for such grant has no overall impact on the Government’s finances. It is done primarily for accounting purposes to ensure that the National Insurance Fund complies with the Government Actuary’s recommendation of maintaining a working balance of one-sixth of the expected benefit expenditure in 2014-15. My noble friend was absolutely correct to point out that at least now the information in the forecast is being made available in the Government Actuary’s report. He asked me a specific point about whether we will look at that historically over the 10-year period. I should say that we think that the grant has not been required over that period but, as one of the paragraphs in the probably lengthy letter that I shall be sending to noble Lords, I shall cover that important point and I thank him for raising it.
There was a smart observation asking: why the different dates. They are in place for good administrative reasons, including taking into account the prescribed payment days of different benefits. I know that there might be a follow-up question asking why there are different payment days but perhaps we can just say that that is the answer. However, the noble Lord puts his finger on an interesting point.
My noble friend Lord Kirkwood asked whether we would ensure that working-age benefits will be debated once the Bill is finished. Working-age benefits will be debated again from 2016-17. I will turn to the IFS Green Budget in a minute. My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked about the uprating of tax credits. The Tax Credits Up-rating Regulations 2014 will uprate certain elements of tax credits by CPI from 6 April. These were laid in draft form on 12 February and are due to be debated later in March. The Child Benefit and Tax Credits Up-rating Order 2014 will increase certain elements of tax credits and the rate of child benefit by 1% from 6 April and 7 April respectively. That was made on 24 February.
My noble friend Lord Kirkwood also asked about how much of the increase in expenditure is in relation to caseload increases. Clearly, caseload is an important factor in the overall expenditure, which is why it is important to make pension spending more affordable over the longer term, including, for example, the changes we are making through increasing the state retirement age. As regards the delay in implementation of the personal independence payment, PIP has been successfully introduced using a controlled approach to learning lessons as we go along in a live environment. We have been very clear that PIP will be introduced in a gradual way. Disabled people have wanted us to take time to get it right, which is what we are doing. Natural reassessment is under way in several areas and we will continue to monitor and evaluate it before making any further decision on widening the reassessment rollout.
My noble friend also asked whether we are going to introduce new eligibility criteria for winter fuel payments. Winter fuel payments are non-contributory and were designed to give older people in the UK reassurance that they can keep warm during the cold weather. The Government intend to bring in an eligibility criterion based on country of residence with payments going to only eligible people living in EEA countries with colder climates. Legislation will be needed to pass this before any changes are made.
On the UC rollout, our current planning assumption is that the universal credit service will be fully available in each part of Great Britain during 2016, having closed down new claims to the legacy benefits it replaced with the majority of the remaining legacy caseload moving to universal credit during 2016-17. Final decisions on these elements of the programme will be informed by the development of the enhanced digital solution.
My noble friend Lord Kirkwood also asked about the Green Budget report written by Paul Johnson and the excellent organisation, Oxford Economics, for the Institute for Fiscal Studies. He suggested that we read the report—it says here that I will do so. I think that I will apply the collective and say that I assure my noble friend that we will do so. It is a very important contribution. We have all said that we want these changes to be evidence based. When serious organisations such as the IFS produce serious research, of course we should take it seriously. We will monitor future developments. I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing that to our attention.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the process and what happens to the different benefits, but I am still chewing over the information that neither the childcare allowances nor the work allowances in universal credit will be increased at all and are therefore facing a real-terms cut. I might have let that go, but I am afraid that I will have to push back on his comment that all sides of the House agree that people will be much better off under universal credit than under the present system. Universal credit is simply a delivery vehicle. Whether or not people will be better off will depend on how generous the benefits are, the taper rates applied, the levels of work allowance or disregard applied and the interaction with other sources of support. In other words, unless the calculations done previously about the gains to work and participation rates in work are redone using these figures, we do not know whether people getting universal credit are going to be better off than they are now.
If the Minister cannot tell me now, could he please write to me later and place a copy in the Library on what assessment the Government have done about the effect on incentives to move into work and gains to work as a result of these real-terms cuts to components of universal credit?
Lord Bates
I appreciate the point which the noble Baroness has made and I was not suggesting that everybody would be better off under this provision. The question is one of removing perceived barriers to go back into work—to encourage people to move seamlessly off benefits and into work—without creating disincentives. That principle, I think I am correct in saying, is one that is widely shared on all sides of the House. How it actually applies and is worked out for individuals and individual families is clearly a crucial matter. On that point, I will add that to the list of issues about which I will write to noble Lords immediately following this debate.
I have already explained that we are spending an extra £3.3 billion on uprating pensions and benefits in 2014-15, enabling us to protect key benefits and vulnerable groups. This order protects pensioners, many of whom have worked hard all their lives and are no longer in a position to increase their income through work, and benefits, which reflect the additional costs faced by disabled people, again reflecting our commitment to protect those least able to increase their spending power. Those are principles which I hope all noble Lords can support and on that basis I commend these orders to the Committee.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2014
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2014.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
House of Lords
Introduction: The Lord Bishop of Durham
Reading Clerk
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Speaker
That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Speaker, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Mr Simon Peter Burton to be Reading Clerk on the retirement of Mr Rhodri Havard Walters.
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, as I informed the House on 11 February, I have appointed Mr Simon Peter Burton to be Reading Clerk in place of Mr Rhodri Havard Walters. I therefore beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Question is that this Motion be agreed to.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)
My Lords, we often talk in this House of the debt we owe to the staff. Today we have the opportunity to pay tribute to one who served us with great distinction for more than 38 years, Rhodri Walters—or perhaps I should say, using that well known phrase from our Letters Patent, our trusty and well beloved Dr Rhodri Havard Walters. Over those 38 years Rhodri served the House in many senior roles, including as private secretary to the Viscount Whitelaw; as Establishment Officer—now less elegantly known as Director of Human Resources; and as Clerk of Committees. He has also overseen the recruitment and development of many of the younger clerks in this House, a task which I know he much enjoyed. But he is perhaps best known to most of us as the Reading Clerk who so beautifully read out our punctuation-free Letters Patent as we were each introduced to the House. It was in this guise that he was described by a parliamentary sketch writer as the,
“master of ceremonies … A figure almost from Dickens. With his wig and spectacles and parchment voice, he was the learned town mouse, nose twitching as he waited”.
Dickensian, perhaps, but how reassuring to us as we stood there nervously.
Beyond the House, Rhodri has many interests, including rowing, skiing—indeed, he is on the slopes of St Anton as we speak—singing, gardening and his native Wales, where he has a house at which he will now be able to spend more time. I know the whole House will want to join me in thanking him for his long and loyal service and in wishing him a very happy retirement.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I thank and pay tribute to Rhodri Walters for his excellent and indefatigable work throughout his career communicating the work of Parliament to a wider audience. He has led in the delivery of learning materials for the parliamentary studies module, an innovative educational partnership between the Houses of Parliament and universities which was launched in 2012. As many noble Lords will know, he was the author, together with Sir Robert Rogers, of How Parliament Works, a uniquely authoritative yet accessible account of how Parliament works. The seventh edition, I can tell noble Lords, will be available in all good bookshops soon. The sixth edition, labelled a “a rare treat” by one commentator, was described by Andrew Marr as,
“clear, elegant, invaluable, bang up-to-date and full of dry wit”.
I can think of no better way of describing one of its authors, Rhodri Walters, and I wish him well in his retirement.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats I wish to associate myself with the words of the Leader of the House and of the Leader of the Opposition in thanking Rhodri Walters for his long and distinguished service to the House, not just as Reading Clerk but in the many offices that he held in the House.
As the Leader of the House said, we have all become very familiar with Rhodri Walters reading out the Letters Patent. After a bit of research, I discovered that I was possibly the first Life Peer whose Letters Patent he read out when I was introduced in November 2007. I once asked him whether he could do that blindfolded after all the times he had done it. He replied that he probably could but would never dare try.
We should also recognise the many different roles that the Reading Clerk plays. One of Rhodri’s roles was as Clerk of the Overseas Office, where he helped the first two Lord Speakers build their roles as the House’s ambassadors overseas. He also helped the House to deepen its ties with Commonwealth Parliaments and to forge new links elsewhere, most notably with Russia, having organised a very successful visit to Westminster of the President of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation.
Rhodri Walters was also instrumental in the House’s engagement with Parliaments of European Union member states, culminating in organising a very successful meeting of the Association of European Senates last year, when this House played host to the Speakers of 15 European upper Chambers.
Reference has also been made to Rhodri’s recreation. I am told by a former member of his staff—it is right to say that those who worked for him held him in highest regard—that he was able to jump, both feet together, from a floor on to a table. For the past six and a half years, his feet were very firmly under the table except when he was standing up reading. For his loyal service we are very grateful and we wish him well in his retirement.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues in the Cross-Bench group I associate myself with the warm and very well deserved tributes already paid to Rhodri Walters. Throughout his career Rhodri displayed a quite remarkable understanding and knowledge of Parliament. Among his many responsibilities he was the clerk to a number of Select Committees. They were far too many to record but I mention just two of what might be called rather controversial Bills. The first became the Constitutional Reform Act, which, among other things, created the role of the Lord Speaker. The second, and more recent, was the Joint Committee on the draft House of Lords Reform Bill. Neither task could possibly be described as being straightforward. The House liked to give Rhodri a real challenge.
Rhodri was a real professional in all that he did, and one who was solidly committed to the service of this House. He can be rightly proud of what he achieved. He takes with him our warmest good wishes and our warm and sincere thanks.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I want to associate these Benches with all the remarks made so far. I think that Rhodri Walters introduced more than 200 Members into the House, including the rare distinction of introducing the Archbishop of Canterbury twice—first as Bishop of Durham and then as Archbishop of Canterbury. He may have been able to deal with the Letters Patent in his sleep, except that when a Bishop comes along he is liable to trip up the Reading Clerk as it is a different form of words.
Perfectionist that Rhodri was, three or four weeks ago, when the first of the current flood of new Bishops arrived, he said to me, with a fallen face, “I don’t think I have got it quite right”. I do not think that anyone else had noticed anything other than perfection because he was a perfectionist—a perfectionist in the parliamentary choir and in every aspect of his life. There was always a particular resonance between the Bishops and Rhodri because he is used to looking after bishops as he is a church warden of one of the parishes here in London. As a good church warden, he forgave us our sins when we did not do exactly as we were told.
Scottish Independence: Faslane
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their best estimate of the cost of moving the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent from Faslane if Scotland votes for independence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, we are confident that the Scottish people will vote to remain part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we are not making any contingency plans for a yes vote. Moving the deterrent and its facilities would be an enormous exercise. Faslane is the largest employment site in Scotland, with around 6,700 military and civilian jobs, increasing to around 8,200 by 2022, with hundreds of millions of pounds of planned investments as it becomes the home to all Royal Navy submarines.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, why are the Government prepared to anticipate what the effects of Scottish independence will be on the currency but not on our national security and our defence policy, given the threat that this represents to the independent nuclear deterrent? Is not the truth of the matter that, if Alex Salmond achieves his nuclear-free Scotland, the practical consequences will mean the end of the British nuclear deterrent at a time of great economic and geopolitical uncertainty? Do the Government have a plan B?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we do not want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. We have achieved so much together and are very proud of the contributions that Scotland makes to United Kingdom defence. The United Kingdom’s integrated approach to defence protects all parts of the UK. Our nuclear deterrent is the ultimate safeguard for our national security. We have made a clear commitment to maintain that. There is absolutely no question that the UK will unilaterally disarm.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, while he and I might disagree with regards to the outcome of the referendum and even with regards to nuclear weapons, does the Minister not realise that the attitude that he has shown on behalf of the Government could well go down as arrogance by the Government towards Scotland? Also, does he not feel that the rest of the United Kingdom are entitled to have an answer to this question, as it is a matter that is relevant to us all?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I absolutely was not being arrogant. I began my response by saying that we do not want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom. We have achieved so much together. In the Ministry of Defence we are very proud of the contribution that the Scots and Scotland have made to defence in the United Kingdom.
Lord Boyce (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that if it becomes necessary to remove the independent nuclear deterrent from Faslane, we must also take into consideration the fact that we must move the other nuclear attack submarines? That must also be counted in the cost.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord makes a very good point and we are well aware of that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, my honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, said in July of last year that,
“the Trident alternatives review shows that there are credible and viable alternatives to the United Kingdom’s current approach to nuclear deterrence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/13; col. 1219.]
Can my noble friend, despite his earlier words, say how much could be saved if these viable alternatives had to be used if there were, sadly, a move from Scotland?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend but I do not have any costs on the alternatives with me. I will check on them and write to my noble friend.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, it seems that it is a dereliction of duty not to be looking at alternatives on such an important issue. We all know that our ability to defend our islands, should Scotland separate, will be dramatically reduced. Whatever happens, should they separate, there will be huge costs for our defence budget. Does the Minister agree that the real special relationship with the United States is the nuclear and intelligence relationship? Even this speculation is damaging that. Does he agree that in a nuclear alliance—the NATO alliance—our withdrawing part of the NATO deterrent, effectively unilaterally, will be something that causes huge damage?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the United Kingdom Government are not planning for Scottish independence and cannot pre-negotiate the details of independence ahead of the referendum. To start planning now for a United Kingdom without Scotland would be to start to unpick the fabric of the UK before people in Scotland have had their say and would require UK Ministers to prioritise the interests of one part of the United Kingdom over those of others. In the event of a vote to leave the UK, the referendum would mark the beginning of a lengthy and complex set of negotiations between the Scottish and UK Governments.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister accept that there is no evidence that the majority of the Scottish electorate want to see the disintegration of the British armed services and neither do they wish to see the extra costs that would certainly go with it?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with every word that my noble friend says.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, we want to see Scotland remain a key player in the United Kingdom, to the mutual benefit of each country within it. Defence is a vital component of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister say what the size is of the UK defence footprint in Scotland?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence spent over £20 billion with UK industry in 2011-12. It would be for the Scottish Government to explain clearly what their armed forces would look like. However, to date, they have failed to provide sufficient clarity. At some £34 billion, the UK’s annual defence budget is one of the largest in the world. As part of the UK, Scotland benefits from the full range of the UK’s defence capabilities that its budget provides.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, would it be charitable to believe that the Government, as a responsible agency, may have scenarios up their sleeve but the noble Lord is not willing to take the House into his confidence?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, even if I did know that I could not possibly tell him about it.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, is there not a major defence manufacturing activity in Scotland, much of which may well be lost if Scotland chooses to become independent?
Lord Astor of Hever
My noble friend makes a very good point. The Ministry of Defence spent more than £20 billion with UK industry in 2011-12, with a £160 billion, 10-year equipment programme. Companies based in an independent Scotland would no longer be eligible for contracts that the UK chose to place domestically for national security reasons. Where they could continue to compete, they would be pitching for business in an international market dominated by major economic powers.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not understand that this is an important matter, and that there is a big difference between pre-negotiation and contingency planning?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot add anything to what I have already said.
School Pupils: English Speakers
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sharples
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of children starting school for whom English is a second language.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, the latest school census in England in January of last year showed that 19% of pupils in year one, 113,000, and 14% of pupils in year seven, 75,000, have English as an additional language. More than 1 million pupils in schools, 13% of the total, have English as an additional language.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that certain schools are involved in considerable expense because they have to employ interpreters? What is being done to help parents learn English, so that it can be spoken at home?
Lord Nash
My Lords, it is for schools to determine how to respond to the needs of pupils with EAL, including how they support pupils’ families. We do not hold centrally a figure for the number of interpreters employed in schools. Local authorities have the freedom to allocate EAL funding to schools as they see fit. Schools may well choose to spend this on interpreters or on employing bilingual staff. For example, we know that in 75 local authorities, primary school pupils with EAL attract between £250 and £750 each. The Government are investing £210 million per annum in community learning language programmes to support families with EAL. We are also funding English courses for 24,000 adults with the lowest levels of English through the £6 million English language competition. There is no specific duty for schools to teach English to parents; however, schools have a key role to play in this. Parents of new pupils at, for instance, Millbank Academy—one of the primaries up the road, which is in my wife’s group—where 85% of pupils have EAL, are introduced both to other parents and a member of staff who speaks their home language, and are invited to the school every week to be updated on their pupil’s progress.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, a recent British Academy report highlighted the importance of the diverse languages of the UK’s minority communities for our diplomacy, national security and defence needs. Will the Minister therefore acknowledge the data, which suggest that the presence in schools of children who are bilingual or have English as an additional language tends, in fact, to raise overall school performance at GCSE, not damage it? What action will the Government take to recognise and improve these language skills for the benefit of the whole country?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right. In fact, pupils with EAL progress very well and have higher EBacc scores. Indeed, sadly, it is many white, working-class British boys with English as a first language who do particularly badly. We recognise the importance of language skills, which is why we have introduced them as a compulsory measure into primary schools. Under this Government, the number of pupils doing languages at secondary school has risen substantially.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that many children who begin school with little or no English go on to become successful students and have a very positive work ethic that they contribute to the school. But is he aware that there are successful schemes in some authorities whereby bilingual students are trained to provide additional support to young people and their parents who do not have English as a first language to adapt quickly to school life and to the English way of life?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister join me in celebrating the role that teaching assistants can play in helping these particular children integrate quickly, particularly if the teaching assistants are drawn from the local community and share the child’s first language as well? Will he reassure all those hard-working teaching assistants around the country that the Government do not have any plans to phase them out?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right that teaching assistants can play a vital role, particularly in this area. As we have discussed, the use of teaching assistants can sometimes not be done well—but, properly used, they are vital. We believe that it is for the head teachers to decide how they employ teaching assistants. It is entirely a matter for them.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
The House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for the statistics that he has given us. More importantly, what is the estimate of the number of children who are now going to school who cannot eat properly, have not been toilet trained properly and cannot cope with healthy foods by comparison with what they are accustomed to eating? What are the Government doing to help parents to train those children to make sure that they have a better standard and to stop the closure of the Sure Start centres, which were aimed at trying to prevent that difficulty?
Lord Nash
The noble Lord is quite right that we unfortunately see an increasing number of pupils entering primary school with very challenging social skills. Primary teachers and assistants have to spend several terms socialising them. Meals are very important, which is why we have introduced compulsory meals. On early years training, in fact we have invested substantially in early years and continue to support childminding.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
Does the Question not highlight the additional challenges that certain teachers and schools have? Will the Minister assure the House that in the inspection and evaluation of schools, full appreciation of the job that teachers do and the distance that each child travels, as well as their achievement in academic league tables, are taken into account to stop demoralising teachers who work in particularly challenging areas and do a wonderful job taking children forward through their education?
Lord Nash
The noble Earl is quite right; teaching is the most noble profession and we should at all times recognise that and constantly try to raise the status of teaching in all our lives. Teachers do a wonderful job. Our new Best 8 progress measures will track the progress of all pupils of whatever ability throughout their school careers. We think that that is very important.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
Can I share with the Minister an experience that I had? A London taxi driver was talking to me about his daughter’s education? His daughter had a first class degree and had gained a job in India in IT. He said, “You see, my daughter was very fortunate. She went to a school where she was able to learn Urdu and Gujarati”. The availability of such languages in our schools should always be seen as an asset and an opportunity for English first-language pupils.
Flooding: Agricultural Areas
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Shrewsbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to improve flood defences in agricultural areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)
My Lords, we are spending £2.4 billion in this four-year period on national flood risk management and much of the 1.3 million hectares of agricultural land at flood risk benefits from this investment. Over the past two years, our capital investment has provided improved protection to more than 150,000 hectares of farmland and many agricultural areas also benefit from the Environment Agency’s flood defence maintenance work.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, while I welcome the creation of the farm recovery fund to support bringing flooded land back into production, is my noble friend aware that the impact of the flooding means that the majority of crops in the current production season will be totally non-productive? This causes considerable hardship in many agricultural communities. I ask my noble friend what plans the Government have to alleviate this hardship.
Lord De Mauley
Before I answer my noble friend’s question, I remind the House that I have a farm and that I am not unfamiliar with being flooded. The £10 million farming recovery fund will help farm businesses bring flooded agricultural land back into production as quickly as possible. In addition, £10 million is available under the farming and forestry improvement scheme—part of the rural development programme—which will provide support for farm business resilience. One hundred per cent rate relief is available to flooded businesses for three months. There are also, more generally, grants of up to £5,000 for households and businesses in affected areas to improve resilience of premises to future flooding.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as my own village, Vernham Dean in rural Hampshire, has been very badly affected by the flooding. In our village, some householders have been told that although their insurance is valid if there is rising river water, it is invalid if flooding is as a result of rising water through the water table. This is preposterous on the part of insurance companies. Will the noble Lord do everything he can to ensure that insurance companies live up to their responsibilities to the people who have been paying their dues?
Lord De Mauley
First, I extend my sympathy to the residents of the noble Baroness’s village and, indeed, the many other people who have suffered as a result of flooding in the last couple of months. I suspect that the specific answer to the question she raises is that unfortunately it depends on the drafting of the specific insurance contract. However, I sympathise strongly and I assure her that we are looking very carefully at the issue of insurance—as she will know—particularly in the context of the Water Bill currently before your Lordships.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend seen reports stating that where there are trees, managing flooding control is very much easier—apparently they aid the removal of water from the surface very effectively—but that the EU encourages our farmers to cut down trees? I do not know whether this is true, but if it is has he any comment to make about it?
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend is right that trees planted in the right places can do much to help with flooding before it happens, as it were. I am not aware that the EU encourages people to cut down trees. Specifically, though, through the RDPE, the funding that we get from the common agricultural policy has been used to plant many millions of trees.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the noble Lord will be only too aware of the huge contribution that British agriculture makes to food security. Could he therefore tell us what assessment Her Majesty’s Government have made concerning the risk to food security due to poorly planned flooding amelioration and prevention schemes, which are allowing considerable areas of high-grade agricultural land to be taken out of production due to flooding?
Lord De Mauley
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for coming to see me the other day to talk about these things. There is currently no evidence that flood events such as those experienced in 2007, 2009 or 2012—or, so far, in recent events—represent a threat to food security in the United Kingdom. According to the UK food security assessment, the UK enjoys a high level of food security as a developed, stable economy. I think it is more likely that disruption to transport links could impact access to food supplies, but we are watching this carefully.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister advise the House whether any money is available from the European Union to offset these costs on the British Government? If so, have the Government drawn down any of that money?
Lord De Mauley
I think that the noble Lord might be referring to the EU solidarity fund, which is designed to support recovery if a country is in an area that has been affected by a major natural disaster. The UK applied to the fund once before in 2007 when flooding affected over 48,000 households and 7,000 businesses. The threshold for a national disaster is still €3 billion, in 2002 prices. Recent events, although locally severe and certainly very traumatic for local residents, cannot be compared in terms of impacts or categorised as a major natural disaster. However, we will keep the matter under review.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, in a Somerset village completely cut off by water, a woman who normally works 45 to 50 hours per week to support her family is having to rely on a boat to get in and out. She is therefore not able to work nights and her working week has been reduced to 20 hours. Her income has dropped dramatically and she is now in rent arrears. Her house, however, is on high ground and well above the flood-water. Can the Minister assure us that this woman and others like her will be able to gain access to the grants announced by the Government?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, as my noble friend knows, we have huge sympathy for those who have been affected and we are doing what we can to help. In my supplementary answer to my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, I outlined a number of the schemes that are available. I suspect that I am going to need a bit more information about this specific case, and if my noble friend would like to get in touch we will see what we can do to help.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, is there not an argument for turning agricultural land that floods into reservoirs, thereby providing upstream storage of water which would help alleviate flooding problems, particularly in the Thames Valley?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, we are looking at a number of possible ways in which we can do this. The noble Lord will know that these things are not simple. I will have to ask him to have some patience while we look at the various options.
Education: Vocational Education
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the approach taken by Germany and Austria in promoting vocational education; and what lessons they have drawn for the United Kingdom and UK competitiveness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, in Germany and Austria, vocational education is of high quality and closely involves all local employers, which in Germany is sometimes on a compulsory basis. Of course there are differences between our countries, but there is much we can learn from them. This has informed our reforms of vocational education and Professor Alison Wolf’s review. By introducing the tech bacc and tech levels, reforming apprenticeships and through our UTCs and studio schools, we are expanding high-quality technical education while at the same time ensuring that industry is involved at every step of the way.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that welcome news. We all valued the visit of Chancellor Merkel to Parliament last Thursday, during which she spoke of competitiveness. The German education system does a better job for the nation’s economy and for the less academic partly by ability streaming in schools with the possibility of switching between streams. This provides better educational outcomes and a larger, better pool of talent that can be apprenticed to German business, which is very actively involved. Can we improve our PISA scores and our business performance by doing the same in our schools?
Lord Nash
My noble friend is quite right that the PISA results were a stark wake-up call for all of us about the need to improve our education system across the board in order to compete internationally. In comparison with Germany, we do particularly badly on maths and science. To achieve improvements, we are continuing to introduce a whole suite of reforms, as noble Lords know. As for streaming, we believe that all pupils need a core body of knowledge and indeed I understand that Germany is now extending the period during which their pupils have this. However, there is much that we can learn from Germany. Our UTCs and studio schools, of which we have now approved almost 100, are modelled closely on the success of German technical schools, as are our higher apprenticeships.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned studio schools in both his responses. I have recently been appointed a patron of studio schools. Since they were first started in 2010, how many schools have opened and what progress has there been on this excellent initiative that encourages employability skills and a more hands on approach? The CBI says that employers want employability skills. Will the Government be funding more studio schools?
Lord Nash
I am delighted to hear of the noble Lord’s involvement in studio schools. It is fantastic for someone with his experience to be giving back in this way. There are 46 studio schools, 28 of which are open with a further 18 in pre-opening phase. More than 400 employers are involved in studio schools. We welcome all high-quality applications for studio schools.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the points that she made, with which I agree totally. Could we not emulate Germany in another way by recognising vocational qualifications such as apprenticeships? Apprenticeships are celebrated in Germany very much like graduate degrees are celebrated in this country. For instance, engineers who have come up through an apprenticeship route are held in much esteem, much more than they are in this country. What can we do to make sure that we emulate that?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right. The first thing we can do is to reform the standard of our previously existing vocational qualifications, which were nowhere near good enough, with far too many that were not doing our pupils any favours. However, for the first time we now have a high and equal status pathway for pupils through the tech bacc.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that in Germany 60% of school children enjoy some form of technical education? The figure in Britain is 15%, and that is one of the reasons why at the moment Angela is the rooster in the walk. Will he ensure that the expansion of UTCs continues? We have 50. There should really be 100 as these colleges are the only colleges that produce employable engineers and technicians and so far none of their students has joined the ranks of the unemployed.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, many further education colleges encourage young people who have already attained five GCSEs at school effectively to resit vocational courses at the same level as GCSEs—level 2—rather than pushing these students to a level 3 —A-level standard—qualification. What steps are the Government taking to give incentives to colleges to push students to progress and to deliver quicker and better the vocational skills that our economy desperately needs?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that high-quality careers education and properly trained careers advisers are necessary so that young people in schools know the full range of opportunities available to them from vocational education?
Lord Nash
I agree that they are extremely helpful, but my noble friend will have heard me say before that the technology has moved on from the careers adviser being the gold standard. The gold standard must be the active involvement of all schools with business so that all their pupils have a clear, direct line of sight to the workplace.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, have the Government looked at the Swiss model of higher education? Of the order of only 20% of young people attend universities, which are essentially academic, but virtually everybody else gets seven years of sandwich training. Moreover, Switzerland is assessed to have the highest general level of education for its citizens in the world.
Lord Nash
I am aware that the Swiss have a very successful education model. We have studied models around the world and happen to have taken note of this, although Switzerland is a specific country. I shall look at this in more detail and would welcome a discussion with my noble friend about it.
House of Lords Reform (No. 2) Bill
Immigration Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Immigration Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 8, Schedule 2, Clauses 9 to 15, Schedule 3, Clauses 16 to 47, Schedule 4, Clauses 48 and 49, Schedule 5, Clauses 50 to 54, Schedule 6, Clauses 55 to 58, Schedule 7, Clauses 59 to 61, Schedule 8, Clauses 62 to 66, Schedule 9, Clauses 67 to 70.
Immigration Bill
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to Amendment 4. The group includes Amendments 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as well. This is a point at which I feel I should be instigating some sort of cabaret to retain your Lordships. Maybe a tea dance would be more appropriate for this company; I do not know.
Clause 1 provides for a new section to go into the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act for the removal of persons unlawfully in the United Kingdom. It replaces the current Section 10 of that Act, which is headed, “Removal of certain persons”. That change is significant, and the new section would certainly give rather broader powers. Amendment 1, my first amendment, would require the Secretary of State to give notice of the removal, which should be in writing and give the date and time of the removal. At this stage, at any rate, I have referred to this as the “approximate” time in order to anticipate, and therefore not waste time on, an argument that a plane might be delayed. Talking about time without qualifying it was therefore inappropriate—that is not of course the point of this.
Amendment 4 is about notice to a family member, which new Section 10(6)(c) in effect makes optional. New Section 10 gives powers to remove the individual and family members who are not defined. None of the amendments in this group is about not removing persons who are unlawfully here, which is a different argument, but about who is to be removed and how. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has expressed concerns about the provisions not being in the Bill. We have of course already seen draft regulations. They are in the pack that my noble friend has arranged for noble Lords to see, which contains a whole group of statements of intent, regulations, codes, statements of fact and so on. I thank him for that. I forgot to take it home with me on Friday but I read it, or the right bits, before tabling these amendments.
The Delegated Powers Committee found it,
“difficult to understand why operational experience should have any effect on who is to be treated as a family member”,
and recommended that the definition in the draft regulations be placed in the Bill. That seems to be an appropriate provision. Draft Regulation 4 requires notice to be given to a family member facing removal, which reflects what is currently in the 1999 Act, but the Bill provides only that regulations “may” provide for that notice. I hope that the Minister can explain to the Committee why this should not be a requirement. It seems an absolutely fundamental point and other noble Lords will have seen briefing to the effect that it has been made by the judiciary as well.
There is also a draft regulation providing that the giving of notice invalidates any leave to enter or remain, in the case of the family member previously held, that is currently in Section 10(8). Again, why should safeguards currently in primary legislation not be included in the Bill?
There are always provisions about service of notices in the draft regulations, although I do not know whether they are usual. It may not be a point for debate in Committee today but I could not help noticing that the draft regulations provide for recorded delivery of the notice that requires signing for, but there is deemed service. There must be a risk, for instance, that someone else in the house will sign for receipt of notice of something that is crucial to the person who may not actually receive it. There are deemed service provisions elsewhere in the regulations.
Less technically perhaps, there are directions for removal ceasing to have effect if the family member ceases to belong to the family. Again, that is a current provision and it would be absolutely appropriate for it to be in the legislation. In the Commons Committee, the Minister gave a number of assurances. Of course I accept them, but Governments change, as sometimes do regulations as well.
I cannot recall if the sword of Damocles fell at the end of the tale, but I am concerned about how long it may hang—perhaps for a very long time—and whether it may hang at all over a family member who has a right to leave, enter or remain in the country in his or her own right. This group extends further than these two amendments. Although we may appear to be starting the Bill almost half way through the journey—in the philosophical as well as the practical sense—that someone seeking to enter or remain in our country will make, these are very important issues. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 5, 6 and 7 in my name, and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. These amendments were recommended in the eighth report of that committee on the legislative scrutiny of this Bill. Following the Government’s response to the committee, it produced a further legislative scrutiny report and again recommended these amendments.
The intention in Clause 1 is very simple: to simplify processes for removing people who are in the United Kingdom unlawfully and provide for removal of members of the person’s family, which provides a new Section 10 to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The question of which member of an individual’s family can be removed following the removal or planned removal of an individual is to be decided in accordance with a number of policies. For example, a family member who has been a victim of domestic violence in accordance with the definition in the Immigration Rules will not be removed. Similarly, a member who is no longer in a family relationship will not be removed. There will undoubtedly be debate in your Lordships’ House about who can and cannot be removed under these provisions. Of course, the Government have stated that removals will be in accordance with existing immigration law and our international obligations.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, there are some very welcome amendments to this Bill, and I will speak shortly to Amendments 1 and 4.
As someone who owes his life to a country that was willing to provide sanctuary at a time of extreme danger, as my wife and I secretly left President Idi Amin’s regime in Uganda, I feel strongly about these matters. This is not to say that I do not recognise the need for proper border control. States have the right to guard their citizens from any real negative impact—social or economic—of excessive immigration. Nevertheless, Amendments 1 and 4 are actually very helpful in a number of ways.
First, I apologise that I was not in the House for the Second Reading on 10 February, but I was pleased to see the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that day. He said:
“The Bill does not undermine individual rights; rather, it strengthens them. The arbitrariness of whether the family life threshold has been met is replaced by clarity and consistency”.
He went on to say:
“It streamlines the process of removing illegal migrants while protecting the vulnerable. … Families being removed will continue to benefit from the coalition’s commitment to end child detention. … We will protect the vulnerable”.—[Official Report, 10/2/14; cols. 416-18.]
However, undue haste is rarely in the interests of fairness, especially when people are disorientated, confused and fearful. While I can see the merits of bringing the decisions together, giving people only 72 hours to access the legal support and advice necessary to make an appeal is not helpful. What if someone is unwell or on holiday? I can hear those responsible having no answer to make other than, “'Tough luck”. It is only fair that if a person is to be removed they be given adequate notice. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would have it that the date of removal was given at that point. This is perhaps better than receiving a letter simply saying that you are liable to removal, although either makes it clear that preparations must be made, which is better all round. Of course, some will say that giving notice gives the opportunity to abscond, but, on balance, it is more humane to give notice. The determination is there for those who are regarded as at risk of absconding: they can be detained.
Amendment 4 is another vital amendment that is consistent with the earlier amendment. It would remove the possibility that a family member being removed might receive no notice. It seems to me that, if they did not receive notice, in a society like this that would be not good. I therefore support Amendments 1 and 4.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak particularly to Amendments 1 and 2 but also to Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, as I shall explain.
At Second Reading, I explained to the House that the whole business of enforced removals was by no means new as far as examination from outside was concerned. Indeed, in 2008, I handed the Home Secretary a document called Outsourcing Abuse, which referred to 78 cases where injuries or death had been inflicted on people who were being removed forcibly from this country. I was then a commissioner on the Independent Asylum Commission, which made some far-reaching recommendations about the whole process. In December 2012, I handed the Home Secretary the report of a commission on enforced removals, which made another series of recommendations relating to the Home Affairs Committee report published earlier that year.
Although Part 1 of the Bill has the sub-heading “Removal Directions”, what is lacking from the whole enforced removal process is overall direction. I was very grateful to the Minister, who was accompanied by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for meeting me last week with the Bill team, when I gave him what we had in effect drawn up in December 2012, which was a draft code of practice laying down precisely what should be done in the Home Office as well as by the contractors who are responsible for the removal. The draft also provided for oversight of the whole process, which is sadly lacking at the moment. I was grateful to the Minister for saying that he would take away the document and study it, having referred it to the Minister for Immigration, because it is further reaching in the whole enforced removals process than the content of the Bill. Therefore, I did not table it as an amendment.
However, I should like to inform the House about the content of that document, which is really three codes of practice. The first is all about the actual conduct and the preparation of the case. It refers to duties of the Home Office, which we suggested should establish a complex returns panel to deal with single returnees who refuse either a voluntary or an assisted return in the same way that the Independent Family Returns Panel deals with families. I am very glad that Amendments 4, 5, 6 and 7 deal particularly with the families, and the Independent Family Returns Panel has been a qualified success ever since it was appointed. However, I do not think that that is good enough for the whole process, because the vast majority of people taken back are single people, some of whom have very complex cases indeed.
The document also refers to a group of people who have suffered from totally inadequate supervision and direction for years: the case owners in the Home Office. Frankly, I reckon they are both inefficient and incompetent. I do not reckon that they have ever truthfully told Ministers exactly what has gone on. That has meant that Ministers have not been in possession of the facts. Therefore, we put in the code of practice a lot of things that must be done to oversee the case owners and make certain that they are competent to carry out their task, including having a detailed understanding of immigration law.
Then we come to staff in the immigration detention centre, because that is where the returnee is based. Frequently, the detention centre staff know quite a lot about the person being returned which is not passed on to the case owner and is therefore never taken into account. That causes some of the problems in returns. We believe that immigration detention centre staff must be brought into the process.
Finally come the contractors—the people who provide the detention custody officers taking the person back. Again, this is a sadly neglected part of oversight at present. The contractors have behaved appallingly badly, in public and in front of the Chief Inspector of Prisons when he was accompanying a flight. That they are prepared to do that in front of him suggests that for years they have got away with—literally—murder. It is time that that was stopped. We suggest what must happen to them.
The next part of the thing is oversight. We believe that the Home Office must establish a clearer description and direction of oversight. It has the ideal person to do that in the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. I have met the chief inspector on a number of occasions and know that he is very keen to improve on what he has done already. The difference he has made since he was appointed in 2007 is enormously marked, as I note from when I was Chief Inspector of Prisons and responsible for doing detention centres. If he is given oversight over the process, particularly the practicalities of it, Ministers will find that a lot of the problems that currently appear and are listed under their names will disappear because somebody is responsible and accountable for making certain that those problems do not arise.
I will not speak to the final part of the code of practice at this moment because it refers to the use of restraint, which comes under Clause 2 and Schedule 1. However, my purpose in all this is that underlying everything that has gone on for far too long in the whole conduct of immigration has been what we described in the Independent Asylum Commission as a “culture of disbelief”. It is time that that was eliminated. I find very worrying at the moment that, although the UK Border Agency has been eliminated, I do not detect in the Home Office the leadership of the three silos that have been appointed to take over those jobs. The intentions of this Bill will be achieved only with leadership and drive of the whole process, starting with a determined attack on the 500,000 backlog—it will be defeated only by a determined attack.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I hesitate to follow such a powerful speech and will speak only briefly because important points have already been raised about the amendments. Briefly, I support Amendments 5, 6 and 7, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As she pointed out, in their response to our eighth report—our first legislative scrutiny report on this Bill—the Government said that they would give consideration to the amendments suggested by the JCHR. That is about as good as it gets: the Government will give consideration. They gave away very little indeed in response to our report. We were optimistic that at least something would have happened on this, but nothing has happened. The case has been made as to why it is so important that this provision is placed in the Bill itself. It is not sufficient for it simply to be in regulations or for there to be the very welcome ministerial assurance. It should be in the Bill.
I simply ask the Minister whether he is still considering the case, or has he considered it and decided against it? If so, why? It seems such an eminently reasonable amendment that was proposed by the JCHR and had been supported in various ways by noble Lords.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I am reminded in this debate of a conversation I had in Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre several years ago with a mother—a black woman—who had been removed. Unfortunately, in the process of removal from her home for detention she was injured. Ten months on she was still suffering from the injury that she received. Her 16 year-old daughter—a child with a younger sister of eight years of age—spoke to me about her anger at the injury on her mother and her frustration at being detained for 10 months without trial.
Perhaps this is not the appropriate amendment to bring this in, for which I apologise, but listening to this discussion I commend the coalition Government for their decision early on to minimise as far as possible the detention of families prior to removal. I warmly congratulate them on taking that move.
My other point—again it is probably not the right place to ask about it—is that I am concerned about the training and development of those officers who go to homes to remove families with their children. I would be interested to know how far they have social childcare training akin to what a residential childcare social worker might have, and how far they are supervised by a child and family social worker. It might be helpful on a regular basis that they should be so.
I would be interested in the answers to that sort of question, perhaps not at this point but later in the course of the discussion.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I support everything that has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. In particular, the words of the former Chief Inspector of Prisons must carry very serious weight in this particular discussion.
I am looking at what is happening to the outsourcing of many of these functions and thinking of the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, just now. What are the qualifications and the development of those who are now involved in these private companies with this particular action? How do they exercise their duties?
The Minister made a statement last year concerning the call from Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons not to use force against pregnant women. He told the House that:
“The recommendation in the report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons on Cedars pre-departure accommodation that force should never be used to effect the removal of pregnant women and children was rejected by the UK Border Agency”.—[Official Report, 10/4/13; col. WA 313.]
At the moment, the powers of forced removal—I hope I am not misinformed here—apply only to the immigration Acts of 1999 or 1971. Enlarging this and making it applicable to any immigration inquiry is a very dangerous move. I ask the Minister for his assurance on these matters.
Also, as mentioned already, the culture and the evidence we have of the methods used do not show any change. What are the Government doing to make sure that when this enforced departure has to be undertaken it is done in a humane way?
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, I agree with what my noble friend has just been saying, particularly about the failure of the Home Office to deal with the serious criticisms of the case owners that were referred to earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. The whole point about disbanding the UKBA and returning these functions to the control of the Home Office itself was that by common acknowledgement, including that of the Home Secretary herself, the UKBA had become dysfunctional and something had to be done. However, what has in fact been done since it was disbanded is that the case owners are not the same persons who were making decisions before and were manifestly incapable of doing the right thing, by reason of the fact that a very large number of the appeals against their decisions were upheld by the tribunal. It would be useful if we had an answer to both that question and the noble Lord’s further question about the consideration of Outsourcing Abuse, the report to which he referred, which never had the consideration that I believe it deserved in the Home Office but is crucial to the future health and efficiency of the people who are making these fundamental decisions, which affect the lives of so many people.
On these amendments, I agree with the Delegated Powers Committee that the definition of “family members” must be in the Bill and limited to those whose leave to enter or remain in the UK is expressly dependent on the principal’s leave to enter or remain. For example, a family member who came to the UK for work or study, not as the dependant of the principal, should not be included in the definition. That seems to be the effect of Regulation 3 of the draft Immigration (Removal of Family Members) Regulations 2014 but, as has been said, it should be in the Bill. As the Delegated Powers Committee found, the justification for placing both this and the time limits for removal in secondary legislation—that they may have to be amended from time to time—is not borne out by experience over many years and through a good many immigration Acts.
Draft Regulation 4 has the same effect as Section 10(1)(c) of the 1999 Act, providing that notice has to be given to any family member who is liable to removal, but the Bill provides only that notice “may” be given, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out in moving the amendment. This is partly covered by our Amendment 4, but the Minister may wish to consider placing the obligation to give notice firmly in the Bill. As ILPA makes clear in its briefing, quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, giving notice is vital for the legality of the decision to remove a person so as to give him the opportunity of challenging the decision before the courts. The Secretary of State’s attempt to remove certain persons without notice has been ruled unlawful by the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In short, the powers and safeguards dealing with the identification of family members who may be removed, the question of when the powers may be exercised and the notice to be given should all be in the Bill, as should the provisions of Section 10(5) of the 1999 Act, providing that removal directions should cease to have effect against a person who ceases to be a family member.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will not at this stage make any comments relating to the extension of enforcement powers but will wait until we discuss Amendments 12 and 13. We are not opposed to the principle of Clause 1 but we have questions to raise. We cannot see what the problems for the Government would be in accepting Amendments 5, 6 and 7, and we await the Minister’s response with interest.
We have Amendments 2 and 8 in this group. Amendment 2 is not dissimilar to that moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and provides that a person should be given written notice of their liability for removal. According to the Government, there are approximately 14,000 enforced removals a year, with people being arrested, detained and then removed, and about 29,000 people depart voluntarily to a greater or lesser degree. Apparently, an enforced removal costs about £15,000.
The Immigration Act 1971 requires written notice of decisions to give, refuse or vary leave to be in the United Kingdom. Currently, migrants are told if they are not allowed to be here, and they are then told separately about their removal. Under the Bill, the Government want to be in a position to serve only one decision that gives, refuses or varies leaves and, following that decision, where notice has been given, those who do not have leave to remain will be subject to removal without a separate removal decision or notice being required. It seems that the notice giving the decision on leave to remain will tell the immigrant of their destination for removal, advise them to seek early legal advice and place them under a duty to raise any asylum, human rights or European free movement issues with the Home Office. It is not clear why this is not stated in the Bill. No doubt the Minister will explain why and indicate what else will be required to be included in this decision notice. Apparently, the decision notice will be issued at least 72 hours before any removal is attempted, which is in line with the amount of notice given currently when a removal decision notice is issued. Will the decision notice make clear the individual’s liability to removal, and will it state when, where and how that removal will take place? I look to the Minister to give a response to that question when he replies. Will the minimum 72 hours apply to family members? The draft regulations refer to,
“at any time prior to … removal”.
I hope the Minister will respond to that question. Included in the decision notice will be options for voluntary departure and the consequences of not so departing. Will the Minister say what the consequences of not departing voluntarily will be that will be set out in the notice and, once again, why that should not be in the Bill?
Since financial reasons appear in part to be behind the provisions in Clause 1, will the Minister say what the Government anticipate those savings will be and what impact the change to not having a separate removal notice will have on the number of enforced removals and on the number of people departing voluntarily? Perhaps he will also say what impact the Government expect the change to having no separate removal notice will have on the net migration figure each year, since one assumes that one key purpose of the Bill, as far as the Government are concerned, is to have an impact on that overall figure. It seems unlikely that the current system will be strengthened if the time gap between an individual receiving notice that they do not have leave to be in the United Kingdom and the time they are removed if they do not leave voluntarily is longer than under the current arrangements, under which a separate notice of removal decision is issued. Will the Minister say how long it currently takes, on average, for an attempt to be made to remove a person following a refusal to grant or vary leave being made, how long it takes following the removal decision being sent, and how long the Government intend it should take under the proposed arrangements with only one decision notice being issued in the light of the intention that a decision notice will be issued at least 72 hours before a removal is attempted?
Amendment 8 provides that the regulations that the Secretary of Sate can make about the removal of family members under Clause 1(6) should not be made unless a draft has been made before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. The Bill does not provide for this to be the case in respect of regulations under Clause 1(6), which would not be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clause 1(6) enables the Secretary of State to enable regulations that, in effect, define who should be considered a “family member” and the period during which they may be removed. Surely legislation should be clear about the people who are subject to the powers it contains. The Secretary of State’s definition of a family member, which could be wide-ranging, should be subject to full discussion and affirmative approval by both Houses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a welcome start to the Bill. Although we have strayed into some of the subsequent elements in discussing this, that is inevitable because the Bill knits elements together. It is proper that we see how the provisions of Clause 1 fit into the other aspects of the Bill.
I think that we can all agree that our current system for removal is too complex. It requires a number of decisions and notices to be made and served. Separate refusal and removal decisions can cause confusion to migrants as to when they need to leave the UK and lead to legal challenges being made later in the process
I start by considering the two amendments so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. We know that she works assiduously on these Bills, whether or not she has taken home the guidance brochure this past weekend. Amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that a person must be given written notice of their removal. Amendment 1 also mandates setting out the date and approximate time of that removal. While I understand the broad intention behind Amendment 1, this would inadvertently reintroduce a layer of complexity, which the whole purpose of the clause is to reduce.
The intention behind Clause 1 is to move to a system where only one decision is made and served, giving, refusing or varying leave. Following that decision, those who require leave but do not have it will be removable.
I can confirm to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and indeed to other noble Lords, that such people will all receive notice of the decision in writing, in accordance with Section 4 of the Immigration Act 1971, so it is unnecessary to place an additional notice requirement within this clause. This notice will inform them of the decision on leave, of their liability to be removed if they do not depart voluntarily, and the proposed destination for any enforced removal.
It would not be feasible to provide a date or approximate time of removal in this notice. Not all those who become liable to removal will be facing an enforced removal, as we—and, I think, all noble Lords—would always prefer that those who do not have valid leave to be in the country should return home voluntarily. This allows the migrant to depart on their own terms, is more cost-effective for the taxpayer, and, if the migrant leaves without the use of taxpayer resources, they can reduce the likelihood of, and possibly avoid, a re-entry ban.
I turn to the comments of my noble friend Lady Hamwee on the deemed service of the decision. She will be well aware that “deemed service” replicates the existing notice provisions, which have been shown to work effectively and are interpreted with a degree of flexibility, such that if the person can show that they received the notice at a later date, we will accept that as the date of service. There are established procedures on the delivery of notice and, indeed, they are set out in the regulations.
All migrants will be given the opportunity to raise with the Home Office any asylum, human rights or European free movement reasons why they believe they are entitled to stay in the UK. They will be informed that they are under a duty to do so at the earliest opportunity if their circumstances change, and will be advised to seek any legal advice as early as possible.
I hope I can reassure the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, who I am delighted is participating in our debates today, that the common law principles of access to justice mean that migrants will be given sufficient time—a minimum of 72 hours—to raise such grounds before any removal can be enforced. They will be reminded of the fact that they may be removed from the UK if they do not depart voluntarily during any contact management events. If the migrant’s removal is enforced but they are compliant with the process, they will be informed of when to check in to the port of departure. If the migrant is not compliant, they will first be detained, where they will be informed when removal is imminent.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, mentioned our very productive meeting. Although I cannot share his view of the hard-working people we ask to handle this difficult task on our behalf, I note what he says about oversight. I should say that quality assurance checks are part and parcel of the process. However, we recognise that there is room for further improvement. As such, we have an ongoing programme of work to continue to monitor and progress our decision quality.
Amendments 4 to 7 seek to remove the discretion in the regulations as to whether we notify family members of removal. We have already stated our intention that family members will always be given notice where they are to be removed. I hope that it pleases the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Avebury, that it is our intention to work out how to address the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on Clause 1. We will amend the Bill on this subject. However, I remind noble Lords that it was only on 21 February that we received the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, making some similar recommendations. We are working out how to address both issues on Report. I hope I will return on Report. I reiterate that we will amend the Bill to meet the issues raised by these reports.
I now turn to Amendment 8. I appreciate the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the processes surrounding the removal of family members which have led to his tabling this amendment. At the risk of jumping ahead of ourselves, Clause 67 sets out the proposed parliamentary procedures in respect of various order and decision-making powers provided for in the Bill. It already specifies that any power to make an order or regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument and that, for this particular power, it is under the normal process of negative rather than affirmative procedure. The draft affirmative procedure is normally reserved for those orders or regulations that amend or repeal primary legislation, or develop policy in a way to require significant parliamentary debate, or where the intention behind the power to make them is not clearly set out in the Bill. This Bill is clear on the intent of the regulations. The scope for a Government to construct anything that would require significant debate in a statutory instrument deriving from it is limited.
The existing removal powers that are in force allow the removal of family members. Unlike in deportation cases, there is currently no statutory definition of what constitutes a family member. That is a matter left to the Home Office. By defining this in regulations—noble Lords have referred to the draft regulations that have appeared in the memorandum that has been circulated—the Bill will give new clarity to families so that they will know exactly who may be liable to removal. It will also provide further parliamentary oversight that has until now been absent. Following scrutiny of this clause in the House of Commons, and at the request of the right honourable Member Mr David Hanson, my honourable friend Mark Harper, the former Immigration Minister, arranged for a draft of these regulations to be published and a copy is placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I might ask the Minister a question. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee referred to the Government’s argument that these matters are best placed in regulations because the definition of “family member” or the time limits for removal may change within a limited extent. It commented that this purported justification is undermined by no such change having been needed over a period of very many years during which there have been numerous immigration Acts and a litany of immigration rules changes. Since the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, subject to what the Minister may say, appears to have shot the Government’s arguments to bits, why is the Minister still resisting ensuring that this is done by the affirmative process?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think that I have made it clear that the affirmative process is used where there is an opportunity for the Government, in effect, to change policy through a statutory instrument, which then gives rise to a reasonable demand by Parliament for the opportunity to debate the measure. As I have said, we are going to bring forward more explicit changes to the Bill to reflect the concerns shown by the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It would probably be best if we waited until then to see what they say before we rush to change the procedure by which these matters have been considered in the past. It would be helpful to the House to wait until these changes are produced.
The draft regulations are designed to reflect the immigration rules. If a person can come to UK and be granted leave on the basis of a family relationship with another migrant, it is only right that such a person could be removed along with the lead person who has no leave to be in the UK. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee made recommendations about this clause that I am considering further. I will respond in detail on these recommendations before we consider the matter again on Report. That would be the right time, and I urge noble Lords to wait and see where these considerations lead us.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked a number of questions. If I do not cover them all now, I will certainly write to him. We will write to address his questions about the timescale of decision-making on removals and the carrying out of those decisions because I understand that this matter is of interest to a number of noble Lords. As to the impact on the number of removals, Clause 1 does not permit new categories of people to be removed; all those who can be removed under the clause can already be removed. It does not extend the powers to remove people but there is currently a more complicated set of procedures than will exist through the measures in the Bill. Clause 1 is about making removals more efficient.
Lord Rosser
Is the Minister saying that the provisions in Clause 1 about what the Government would regard as streamlining the procedure are not actually designed with the intention or hope that they will lead to more people who are not entitled to stay here and do not have leave to remain in the United Kingdom leaving the country than at present? Is that not the purpose of these changes?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
No, the purpose of the changes is to make sure that people who are subject to removal leave voluntarily rather than through enforced removal. I am sure that the noble Lord and most noble Lords would agree with that proposal.
We will ensure that family members who have valid leave to remain in the UK in their own right will not be removed. We propose to remove only dependants of persons with no right to be in the UK. Where dependency is broken, such as when it involves a victim of domestic violence, the former dependant is expected to apply for leave to remain in their own right—and, if necessary, they will be removed if they were unsuccessful as a main applicant. We will also look at the best interests of the child in making any decision under our obligations—of which noble Lords are well aware—regarding victims of human trafficking.
This has been a helpful debate. I hope that I have been able to whet noble Lords’ appetite for a government response on this important clause before Report. I can reassure them that family members will always be notified if they are facing enforced removal. The draft regulations underscore this and make it clear how notice is to be given. In the light of those points, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
The Archbishop of York
I still have not understood the Minister’s logic. I appreciate and want to commend the removal of the two-stage approach—the fast-forward immigration decision and then the removal decision. That has caused difficulty to a lot of people whom I have been representing and the Secretary of State knows that because we have had wonderful conversations. Therefore, I applaud that. But if there are 72 hours in which you can appeal the decision, what is the problem of giving notice in writing of the date and approximate time of the removal? People could still appeal within 72 hours. Why not state that? I cannot understand the logic. Can the Minister please help me?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The purpose of the notice is not to put people under notice as to the exact timing of when they will go. It is intended that they should be informed of where they will be removed to because that might have a bearing on human rights considerations. But the actual timing of their removal is an administrative matter. To my mind, it would be a complication that might reduce the effectiveness of these measures if the actual timing of their removal also had to be part and parcel of that notice.
If experience shows that it is possible to be more precise in working this new arrangement, I have little doubt that we will come back to the House to seek ways in which that can be done. But for the time being, it is expecting too much to be able to be precise about the actual time and date of a person’s removal when serving this notice.
The Archbishop of York
Is the Minister quite sure about that in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said about the way that this thing will work—that it will not be very efficient and that people will not be very good at it? Now the Minister is saying that there will be an administrative decision by the Secretary of State. How can we be certain that the kind of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, drew our attention to, which are real experiences that everyone knows about, will not affect the changes we are looking for?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I can be certain that when people get a decision about the refusal of their right to remain they will be removed if they do not make arrangements to go voluntarily. That is a step forward. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that much of what the Government are trying to do, including bringing Border Agency activities into the Home Office, is designed to make sure that as we develop better oversight of decision-making within the Home Office and within UKVI we will have a more efficient process in the detail that the most reverend Primate suggested.
Lord Rosser
How long will those who have been told that they no longer have leave to remain be given to make arrangements to leave voluntarily and how long will it be before a decision is made that they are not going to leave voluntarily and that enforced removal is required?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It will be for them to make arrangements with UKVI on the basis of the notice that they have been given. We are not looking for enforcement as being the primary objective of the policy. I think the noble Lord would agree that voluntary departures are what we would prefer to see happen.
Lord Ramsbotham
Following what the most reverend Primate said, perhaps I may say how pleased I was to hear the use of the word “better” just now in terms of oversight. I ask the Minister to accept that, hard- working though they may be, case workers have not been very good at their task and neither has there been oversight. If they had been and there had been oversight there would not have been this endless history of problems and complaints for years and years, which have been ignored. The time has come for that ignoring to stop. Therefore, I am relieved to hear mention of better oversight.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the critique of what happens in practice from someone experienced as an inspector has clearly resonated around the House. We have already talked during the passage of the Bill—and I am sure we will talk again—about the importance of practice. Whatever is on paper, whether in the Bill or in regulations, is a precaution against bad practice, but it is the good practice that is important. Given the Minister’s assurances about coming back at the next stage, more formally we hope, with responses in the form of amendments to the comments of two committees, it would obviously be inappropriate for me to spend very long at this stage responding to the points that have been made. However, I will say that, like others, I read between the lines: three days does not seem very long in which to decide what to do about a decision that has been handed down and to make arrangements. But there we are.
The Minister suggested that my first amendment would reintroduce complexity. I was actually seeking to provide more clarity. When he referred to there being a provision somewhere else in the raft of immigration legislation that deals with notice in writing, I could not help thinking that consolidating all this legislation has defeated Government after Government, but it is something that is sorely needed.
I make one perhaps tiny point just to clear the undergrowth before the next stage. The noble Lord referred to Clause 67 of the Bill as providing for the negative procedure. I would have thought that it was the regulations and orders section in the 1999 Act—which actually takes us to the same point as it being negative—that would apply as Clause 1 is replacing a section of the 1999 Act. It would be helpful if before Report we could understand what the relevant provision is so that those of us who might be minded to suggest amendments know that we are proposing amendments to the correct section or clause. However, I am glad that we will have amendments on regulations which the Minister talks about as changing policy. Regulations set policy before it gets changed by subsequent regulations. That is what many of us are concerned with. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
“( ) paragraph 18B (detention of unaccompanied children);”
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
I rise to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach and will speak to the other amendments in the group. We believe that the Government have transformed the approach to returning families with children in line with their coalition agreement commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes. We now propose, through these amendments, to give legislative effect to our current policies on family returns by putting key elements of the new process into primary legislation.
Ending child detention was previously debated during Committee in the House of Commons as a result of amendments tabled by my honourable friend Julian Huppert MP. In Committee, the then Immigration Minister, my right honourable friend Mark Harper, agreed that the department would see whether it was possible, either in whole or in part, to put some or all of current government policy into primary legislation. On Report in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced the proposal to reinforce the commitment to end the detention of children for immigration purposes by putting these four key elements into primary legislation.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I welcome these amendments. There is frequently talk in this House, and rightly so, about caring for the interests of children, reference to Section 55, the paramountcy principle and so on—but sometimes it is easier to say it than to put it into practice. These amendments articulate the practice and are about more than just principle.
In 2009 I was refused a visit to Yarl’s Wood by the Home Office. I never discovered whether I was thought to be subversive or whether I was thought likely to be someone who might attempt to spring a detainee, but I have visited Cedars. Yes, it is for detention for the reasons we have heard, but it is also about caring for people and preparing them for return. Having seen the facilities there and talked about the work that goes on, I have to say that the Cedars centre is a great deal preferable to scooping up a child and putting them straight on a plane out of the country. The care that is given and the thought that goes into the preparation impressed me very much. When I was there, I asked about the boundary wire round the premises. Although it was quite inconspicuous, it seemed to give the feel of detention, and I had observed it going in. I was told that it was to keep out local troublemakers.
I have a number of questions. One is about allowing one parent to be returned within the 28-day period, which might mean that a family is split and a child is separated from one parent. Will my noble friend tell the House about the circumstances in which separation would occur? Secondly, subsection (2)(b) of proposed new Clause 78A talks about a single parent or a carer. Is a carer a local authority foster parent? What is a carer in this context?
As regards the family returns panel, will my noble friend give the Committee assurances about how its independence will be assured? Secondly, for reasons that I think will be obvious, will he give assurances about whether the individuals concerned will have a means of giving information or making representations to the family returns panel, or checking that the information that it receives from others is accurate? These are important provisions.
As regards unaccompanied children, other noble Lords may remember the very effective and impressive Member of this House who died some years ago, Baroness Faithfull—Lucy Faithfull. I recall her talking about meeting an unaccompanied child arriving from, I think, Somalia. She told the story of having gone to Heathrow to meet this child in a social work capacity with a bar of milk chocolate to give to the child as a present. This child had never encountered milk chocolate before and was really scared about what she was being asked to eat. That story has remained with me as an example of the cultural gulf that has to be crossed and the hard work needed in dealing with children who arrive here unaccompanied.
In what circumstances is this provision used and what change in policy does it indicate? We have had confirmation that multiple 24-hour periods will not be applied, but will my noble friend say something—I do not know whether I missed it—about monitoring the use of the provisions and publishing data on the number of occasions, the circumstances and the length of time an unaccompanied child is detained, and so on?
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to government Amendments 10, 14 and 15; 10 because of the Independent Family Returns Panel about which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke. I agree with the importance of independence. There is no doubt that the Independent Family Returns Panel has made marked improvements to the process since it was formed, and that it is very well led and well worth listening to. I commend the coalition on the determination with which it has pursued the detention of children. Having served on the advisory board early in 2010, soon after the election, I am glad to see this clause in the Bill.
Finally, I am very glad to see the place of detention at Cedars, and I commend Barnardo’s for the way that it has conducted the care of families who have been in that place.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I, too, welcome this amendment. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, and I visited Yarl’s Wood when he was Archbishop of Canterbury. We were quite surprised and shocked, and made very clear representations about this particular question of the detention of unaccompanied minors. I am very grateful for what is happening here but again, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I want to know whether the Minister can give us an assurance that there will be monitoring of the 24-hours issue and that it will not turn into a norm that nobody can question, so that we can find out whether this is healing a very difficult problem. However, for all of that, I welcome this particular amendment.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is certainly a move in the right direction, but the one anxiety I have is that it still leaves matters very much in terms of systems and the responsibilities for ensuring systems are running properly. If we put ourselves in the position of the unaccompanied child, who may be going through all sorts of mental turmoil and agony—bewildered, uncertain and desperately in need of friendship and help—it would be good to hear a little about the Government’s thinking on how these real psychological, and consequently very often physical, needs of the young person are being dealt with. We have debated the policy in this Bill in previous years and, ideally, the child in this situation needs a personal champion, who is there throughout the process, advising, talking to and consulting them—if you like, a counsellor, who is there to enable the child to make sense of what is happening and being proposed and to enable the child to start developing his or her own views about what they really want to take place.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, these amendments, which are all concerned with the detention and removal of children, either on their own or as part of families, are a reflection of existing government policy, which, in the absence of these amendments, could be reversed without parliamentary oversight, as the Home Secretary observes in her Factsheet: Ending the Detention of Children for Immigration Purposes, issued last month. In fact, children are still to be detained, but in places described as “pre-departure accommodation”. The only place identified as such so far is, as has been mentioned, Cedars near Heathrow, which has hitherto been included in the list of short-term holding facilities to be discussed in the next amendment. It appears to me that holding children in Cedars is still detention, as I think my noble friend Lady Hamwee remarked, because the families are still deprived of their liberty, albeit in far more congenial surroundings than in immigration removal centres and even though they are no doubt looked after far better by child-friendly Barnardo’s than the impersonal money-making subsidiary of Capita that runs the IRCs.
Amendment 9 allows for a 28-day grace period following the exhaustion of appeal rights before a child and the relevant carer may be removed, during which it is hoped that agreement can be reached on their voluntary departure. This system is already operating on a non-statutory basis, but it would be useful if my noble friend could say what statistics there are on voluntary, as compared with forced, departures up until this point. In addition, are any resettlement grants available to families who agree to voluntary departure and what are the details of the organisation through which the voluntary departures and any associated grants are organised? They used to be organised by the International Organisation for Migration, but I think that that has changed in recent years.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with whom I had the honour to sit on the House of Lords European Union Sub-Committee F, when we looked particularly at issues around immigration. He may have been with us when as a committee we visited Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre to take evidence. I am interested in the answers to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked when referring to encouraging voluntary return and in having some detail about what incentives are being offered on that. I share his concern about gaining some reassurance about the independence of the Independent Family Returns Panel, and I am also interested in what he said about the need for figures on the detention of unaccompanied children in the past.
My chief wish at this point—using this as the right place this time—is to pay tribute to the coalition Government for this huge change in the safeguarding of children. It was harrowing to visit the Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre both as a member of the House of Lords European Union Sub-Committee and on two previous occasions early in the centre’s existence. Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre, which took these families, was based very much on a category C prison, so it was very familiar to me, having visited Feltham young offender institution. One would see a mother, with her young child, coming through the admission room—just like Feltham, with the barred gate—and what would a child be thinking, having that experience, walking through this prison?
I pay tribute to the first Children’s Commissioner, who produced a number of important reports, which highlighted, for instance, how in going from admissions to the family wing there might be seven or eight separate doors that had to be opened with keys by the warder. There were important improvements to the regime under the Labour Government. However, towards the very end, as I said, I met a 16 year-old girl. Can your Lordships imagine what any girl or young woman would feel who was detained for 10 months, through no fault of her own or any action that she did wrong, separated from the pleasure of being with her peers? What can that be like? Of course, one understands why she was so angry with me and with us for allowing this to happen to her and her family.
I express my heartfelt thanks to the coalition Government for improving this situation so greatly, and I welcome these amendments.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, there are many things that show exactly what the heart of a nation is. One is the way in which we treat children of all races and all different backgrounds.
I remember 30 years ago at the time of the Ethiopian famine being in Tel Aviv and then in the Galilee and receiving the children and the folk from Operation Solomon. They came with nothing at all: the adults in their white gowns and the labels on their foreheads indicating who they were, and the children—well, I held one or two of them in my arms and they were so different from my own grandchildren. I am so grateful that my grandchildren are robust and enjoy life; these little children had nothing to enjoy.
Children are children wherever they are, whatever their background, and they need to be treated with respect and kindness wherever they happen to be. One reason I supported the coalition when we had those votes in 2010 was that the declaration came that we as Liberal Democrats would end the detention of children for immigration purposes. I am not sure that I would be in the coalition if it was not for that promise. Now we are on the last lap, I think, of showing that we really believe that.
In 2009, 2,000 children were detained for immigration purposes. In December last year, 22 children were detained some time or other during the month—not for days but for hours. There is the last lap, as has already been mentioned, where no child should be detained, but we are on the right course. I do not often compliment the Minister—although I hope he is a very good friend—on what is happening with the end of detention of children for immigration purposes.
Imagine a child—one of my own or your Lordships’ grandchildren, whoever they might be—waiting with their parents. The stress that their parents feel, which of course is transmitted to them, is terror. We are removing that terror. There is more to be done. Looking at the measures proposed, is this still the last resort, as it was previously? How and where can we bring this to fruition, so that our nation—I should say four nations: Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland—will be shown to be a nation with real heart and real concern? I will be so happy if that can be the case.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with the comments that have just been made on this important area by my noble friends Lord Avebury and Lord Roberts and by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who always speaks so eloquently on these matters. I apologise in advance if the points have already been covered, but I think that they need to be underlined further and made very clear.
We have had excellent briefings from Barnardo’s, which we know does so much work for these children. We know that unaccompanied children have been temporarily admitted to the United Kingdom, but they are not routinely detained prior to their return. There is concern, and government assurances have been sought, as to whether this situation could change in the future. It is worth making sure that unaccompanied children who are admitted temporarily will not start being routinely detained. I speak as somebody who in their previous role was a councillor in a local authority which had to deal with a fair number of unaccompanied children. All councils have responsibility as corporate parents to those children because they come into their care. My experience of those children who came into our care was always positive. I remember attending award ceremonies for children some of whom had come from worn-torn countries in a vulnerable and traumatised state but had gone on to become academically so proficient that they gained places in universities. They had turned their lives around with the right support. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, when these children go before any panel that is to decide their future, it is important that councils in their role as corporate parents ensure that they are properly supported and represented, as any parents would do for their own children. They should get the right support and advice when it is being determined whether they remain or are returned, or whatever is best for their future. I would like an assurance on that.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I always say that childhood lasts a lifetime, and all children need the best start in life. These amendments will give these children the best possible start and I congratulate the Government on putting them forward. I want to raise just one point on behalf of Barnardo’s—I speak as a vice-president of that organisation. I congratulate Barnardo’s on having made an important effort to make sure that all children are taken care of if they happen to come to this country in unfortunate circumstances. Although Barnardo’s welcomes the 28-day reflection period being enshrined in the law, it is concerned about the drafting of the clause, as it would allow one parent to be returned within the 28-day period as long as there is another parent to care for the child. This in effect allows any family to be split and for the child to be separated from one of their parents, with no restrictions on the circumstances in which it should happen. Barnardo’s believes that a child should be separated from their parent against their will only if it is in the best interest of the child; for example, if there are safeguarding concerns such as domestic violence. It wants appropriate safeguards to be put in place to prevent children being separated from their parents and traumatised in any way. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this issue.
Lord Northbourne (CB)
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that this is an appropriate intervention; if not, I apologise and I shall be very brief. I happen to live near Dover. My wife has chaired a considerably large housing association in the area. It received a frantic call one day from the county council, saying, “We simply can’t cope. We’ve got all these unaccompanied minors arriving”. Those children came and it got to know them and so on. The majority of them were absolutely intentionally unaccompanied immigrants. Having been put on a boat in Calais and told to throw their passport into the water as they went across, they came into this country and there was nothing that we could do to change it. Is that situation still the same and, if so, can the Minister perhaps comment on that aspect of it also?
Lord Rosser
We welcome the Government’s amendments, which lay down requirements in the Bill in relation to the removal of families with children and also unaccompanied children. We will consider the objectives of the Government’s amendments, which the Minister gave in moving Amendment 3. No doubt we will do so in more detail in response to the questions and points that have been raised today.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I acknowledge the welcome that has been given to these particular moves. I assure your Lordships’ House that the Government take very seriously our duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to carry out our functions,
“having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”.
As I indicated in moving the amendment, the intention is to lock in, on a statutory basis, what has been an administrative change in policy. I assure my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece that that is the purpose here; it is not to lay the pathway towards a change in policy. We believe that we have implemented a good policy, one that has commanded support from all quarters of your Lordships’ House. We wish to ensure that that cannot be undone in future except by a change to primary legislation.
Noble Lords commented on Cedars. I confess that I have not been there; that is something I maybe ought to do given what has been said about it in the course of this short debate. My understanding is that it could not be further in look or feel from an immigration removal centre such as Yarl’s Wood. It is important to emphasise, again, that families are held there only as a last report, for only a short period prior to their return and only after safeguarding advice has been sought from the independent family returns panel. Since Cedars was established, Barnardo’s has provided dedicated social work, welfare services and family support to children and their families there. I echo the compliments and praise paid to the work of Barnardo’s by a number of those who have contributed to this debate.
I will try and respond to a number of points. First, my noble friend Lord Avebury asked some questions about numbers. There are published data on voluntary returns, enforced returns and other outcomes in the family returns process. I will certainly send those data to my noble friend. I do not have details as to what the voluntary packages look like but if I can I will try to set out some of those, too. I think everyone would agree that if a voluntary arrangement can be made it is a far better outcome, not least for the dignity of the family. However, published statistics show that, under the old system, 1,119 children entered detention centres such as Yarl’s Wood in 2009, and 436 in 2010. By contrast, the latest statistics show that in the first three-quarters of 2013, seven children—at that time believed to be adults—were held in immigration removal centres and subsequently released following an age assessment. Some 64 children have been held briefly at the Tinsley House family unit after being stopped at the border and 68 children have been held at the new pre-departure accommodation for very short periods prior to leaving the United Kingdom.
On Amendment 9, my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked who a carer is in proposed new Section 78A(1)(b) and whether that included the local authority. No, the carer must be someone who has been living with the child and subject to removal as well. That rules out local authority carers but captures a situation where, for example, a child is part of a family unit with an aunt. In those circumstances, the family unit would benefit from the protection here.
My noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Benjamin raised the possibility of families being separated during the 28-day reflection period. As I sought to emphasise when moving the amendment, we will always seek to ensure that families remain together during the return. However, temporary separation may sometimes be necessary to safely ensure the family’s return. We would not separate a family solely for a compliance reason. It would always be where it was considered in the best interests of the child to be temporarily separated from their parent or where the presence of one of the parents or carers was not conducive to the public good. We would never separate a child from both adults for immigration purposes, or from one in the case of a single-parent family, if the consequence of that decision is that the child would be taken into care.
My noble friend Lord Avebury asked whether we can always give families a copy of the factual summary in the case. We have been working on making these documents more readily available. I am sure your Lordships’ House will readily appreciate the sensitivities involved in sharing these documents and the timings of the returns process. Indeed, one of the particular concerns is that individual members of a family may have provided information in confidence. There is a level of sensitivity around this, although as I indicated we have been working on making those documents more readily available.
My noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Avebury asked about the independence of the Independent Family Returns Panel. Appointments to the panel are made in accordance with the code of practice published on 1 April 2012 by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. This ensures that panel members are appointed on merit following a fair and open selection process, and the process does not compromise the panel’s independence. It includes an independent chair and other members with safeguarding and medical expertise, and provides independent advice to the Home Office on the method of return of individual families when an enforced return is necessary. The advice provided by the panel helps ensure that individual return plans take full account of the welfare of the children involved and that the Home Office will fulfil its responsibilities under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
I was also asked about the situation regarding the detention of unaccompanied children. I sought to make clear when moving the amendment that it is possible that a removal attempt will be unsuccessful for reasons that may be beyond the Government’s control. For example, a plane may develop a technical fault. When this happens, we accept that children should not continue to be held in a short-term holding facility for more than 24 hours. They should be released and given time to rest and recuperate. But the fact that a removal attempt is unsuccessful should not mean that such people are automatically entitled to stay in the UK. It should still be possible to enforce immigration decisions. It may therefore be necessary, after a suitable period, to attempt removal again and this may require a further, short, period of detention.
I reiterate what I said earlier. While it is vital that we enforce immigration decisions in these circumstances, we will not hold children for multiple 24-hour periods in order to achieve this.
One of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, relates to holding unaccompanied children who arrive at the border. Where a child is travelling alone or is identified as a potential victim of trafficking, we may need to hold them for a very short period while we arrange for them to be taken into the care of local children’s services. I do not have figures as to how often this has happened, but all border force officers are given training on trafficking and child protection, so they know what to look out for. To support this we use a system of risk profiles, alerts, and intelligence tools to give officers the information they need to intervene in cases of suspected trafficking.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked about a counsellor for unaccompanied children. It is the view of the Government that the child’s needs and interests are best protected by all the professionals already involved in the care-working. It is better that they do this together and that they each perform and fulfil their statutory responsibilities. Local authorities have a statutory duty to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of children under Section 11 of the Children Act 2004 regardless of the immigration status of the children. I rather suspect that some of the valuable work done by Barnardo’s also helps support children, who I accept are at a very difficult time in their lives.
I think it has been recognised by those who have contributed to this debate that, in view of how difficult and sensitive this could be, the Government have taken great strides to try to put this on a proper basis. It is very different from what it was in the past. I recommend these amendments to your Lordships’ House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I believe it is time for the amendment to be agreed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, it is in order for the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to speak.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response to my observations on unaccompanied children. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to make provision whereby it was required that every unaccompanied child subject to a removal process should have a qualified and transparently independent counsellor specifically allocated to them to guide them through what may be a nightmare situation.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I hear the noble Lord’s point and I think I understand what lies behind it. I was trying to make a point about what our view has been. We should probably also recognise that unaccompanied children may arise in a number of different circumstances. For example, as I was indicating, some might potentially be the victims of child trafficking, which might raise a different set of considerations from others. If a professional team has already been involved in a case, we would not want to cut across that by bringing in someone new at that stage. I recognise the importance of what the noble Lord is saying; I will reflect on it and if there is more that I can add to the answer that I have given, I will write to him.
“Restriction on removal of children and their parents etc
After section 78 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, insert—“78A Restriction on removal of children and their parents etc
(1) This section applies in a case where—
(a) a child is to be removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom, and(b) an individual who—is also to be removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom (a “relevant parent or carer”).(i) is a parent of the child or has care of the child, and(ii) is living in a household in the United Kingdom with the child,is also to be removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom (a “relevant parent or carer”).(2) During the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the relevant appeal rights are exhausted—
(a) the child may not be removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom; and(b) a relevant parent or carer may not be removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom if, as a result, no relevant parent or carer would remain in the United Kingdom.(3) The relevant appeal rights are exhausted at the time when—
(a) neither the child, nor any relevant parent or carer, could bring an appeal under section 82 (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time with permission), and (b) no appeal brought by the child, or by any relevant parent or carer, is pending within the meaning of section 104.(4) Nothing in this section prevents any of the following during the period of 28 days mentioned in subsection (2)—
(a) the giving of a direction for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom,(b) the making of a deportation order in respect of a person, or(c) the taking of any other interim or preparatory action.(5) In this section—
“child” means a person who is aged under 18;
references to a person being removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom are to the person being removed or required to leave in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts.””
“Independent Family Returns Panel
Before section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, insert—“54A Independent Family Returns Panel
(1) The Independent Family Returns Panel is established.
(2) The Secretary of State must consult the Independent Family Returns Panel—
(a) in each family returns case, on how best to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children of the family, and(b) in each case where the Secretary of State proposes to detain a family in pre-departure accommodation, on the suitability of so doing, having particular regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children of the family.(3) A family returns case is a case where—
(a) a child who is living in the United Kingdom is to be removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom, and(b) an individual who—is also to be removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom.(i) is a parent of the child or has care of the child, and(ii) is living in a household in the United Kingdom with the child,(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) additional functions of the Independent Family Returns Panel,(b) its status and constitution,(c) the appointment of its members,(d) the payment of remuneration and allowances to its members, and(e) any other matters in connection with its establishment and operation.(5) Regulations under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(6) An instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) In this section—
“child” means a person who is under the age of 18;
“pre-departure accommodation” has the same meaning as in Part 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
references to a person being removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom are to the person being removed or required to leave in accordance with a provision of the Immigration Acts.”.”
Lord Avebury
“Short-term holding facilities rules
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make rules for the regulation and management of facilities maintained for the purpose of the detention of a detainee for a period up to 7 days (“short-term holding facilities”).
(2) Short-term holding facilities rules may, among other things, make provision with respect to the safety, care, health, activities, discipline and control of detained persons.”
Lord Avebury
My Lords, as the Minister is aware, we have been concerned about the disgraceful conditions of the short-term holding facility at Heathrow Airport for some time. These facilities and others like them are not subject to any rules making provision for the health, safety, care, activities, discipline and control of the persons detained in them, unlike immigration removal centres, which have been subject to a set of rules of this kind since 2001.
The short-term holding facilities are defined in Section 147 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 as places,
“used solely for the detention of detained persons for a period of not more than seven days or for such other period as may be prescribed”.
These facilities are needed for persons either arriving in the UK whose status is being investigated by an immigration officer or being returned to their country of origin, having exhausted their rights of appeal. All 36 of them are managed by contractors on behalf of the Home Office. The main provider used to be G4S but that role has now been taken over by another private contractor, Tascor, highlighting the fact that the Home Office itself no longer has the expertise in-house to resume the management of operations that have been privatised and are no longer effective.
Since 2006, when the UN’s optional protocol to the UN convention against torture came into effect, we have been required to provide inspections by an independent expert body to routinely visit and report on all places of immigration detention to prevent the inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. This task is being performed both for immigration removal centres and for short-term holding facilities by the Chief Inspector of Prisons, whose remit extends well beyond that of the convention to detainee welfare, the need for a decent and respectful approach to detainees by staff and the physical conditions of detention. In the case of the IRCs, there are detailed rules governing such matters as welfare and privileges, religion, communications, healthcare, requests and complaints, and it has been the Government’s intention, ever since 1999, to publish an equivalent set of rules for short-term holding facilities. Drafts of the rules were published in 2006 and there was a consultation on them, but a final version was not presented to Parliament. In 2009, the same thing happened again: there was a draft followed by a consultation, but no sign of the finished product from that day to this. When inquiries were made of policy officials in the Home Office on my behalf, those officials said,
“the rules have been subject to various delays and as such have yet to be finalised”.
That was more or less the same as the answer the Minister gave when the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked him about when the rules would appear.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I stand again to support this wonderful amendment with its mover. What is going on here? This makes sense to me. There are detention centre rules which govern immigration removal centres, but the short-term holding facilities in airports, as has already been mentioned, are very different. In some of them—for example, Pennine House in Manchester where, sadly, a Pakistani man died last July—people can be held for up to seven days. There need to be published rules to provide a sound governance structure. Without that, we will not be reassured. People can be held at times of great personal and familial stress. The intention behind the amendment is to make sure that these facilities make good provision, with clear rules, for safety, care, health, activities, discipline and control of detained persons. Who would argue against that?
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. When I took over as Chief Inspector of Prisons and was given the responsibility for immigration detention centres, I was horrified to find that all of them were geared only for the short term and had no long-term arrangements for people who were there for a long time. When I went into it, I discovered that the reason for this was the lack of direction from the Home Office. There was at that stage the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, which was meant to be running the centres, and they were all let out on contract, but there was no overall drive, no direction.
The fact that we have now been waiting for longer than World War II for this matter to be resolved suggests that that lack of direction and drive obtains across the whole immigration detention centre system anyway. I am still told by members of immigration monitoring boards that, in fact, the centres where people are held—sometimes for years, let alone months—are not geared to look after their needs in any more than the short term, about which I asked last October and which has been so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is important not just that the Government do this in six months, but that they appoint someone responsible and accountable for overseeing these centres, and seeing that things actually happen.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I appreciate the concerns of my noble friend Lord Avebury, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the concerns of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. They have caused my noble friend to table the amendment, and caused us to debate not just the rules but the provision of facilities.
I start by reassuring the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that in the past year the Home Office has been in acute dialogue with Heathrow Airport Ltd about the Heathrow Airport facility to progress accommodation units. That is now bearing fruit. My noble friend Lord Avebury asked me if I could place information on the design of these facilities in the Library. I understand that HAL, the Border Force and, for that matter, the Home Office are in final discussions on the detailed design stage and, indeed, are going out to contractors for quotes in March of this year—that is, now. If that is the situation, I am sure that I will be in a position to satisfy my noble friend’s request to place a copy of the design in the House Library, and I will seek to do that for him.
I am aware that there has also been a lack of legislative framework governing the operation of the short-term holding facilities. As has been pointed out by noble Lords, this has been a matter of concern for years to a number of interested parties, including Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons, who has responsibility for inspecting the UK’s detention facilities. The delay in introducing these rules is regretted, but it has been a case of unavoidable delay being caused by a number of different reasons, including, most recently, the discussions surrounding the legislative framework that should apply to Cedars, which we have just discussed, which initially had been classified as a short-term holding facility and, as such, would have been covered by these rules. We have just debated those amendments. Accordingly, today, I give my noble friend a commitment that separate sets of rules governing the management and operation of short-term holding facilities and the Cedars pre-departure accommodation will be introduced before the Summer Recess. With that, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Avebury
It remains only for me to thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for their powerful support for this amendment. I also thank the Minister not only for the very welcome reply that he has given to this debate but for the close attention that he has paid to the correspondence that we have had over the past few months, particularly on the facilities at Heathrow. I am delighted to hear him give the assurance that we will have separate sets of rules for the short-term holding facilities and the pre-departure accommodation within a shorter space of time than I asked for in the amendment. It is rather an unusual experience to have a Minister grant something better than that for which the amendment asks—I think it is probably unique in my 52 years in one House or the other. I can only say how grateful I am to my noble friend and how much we look forward to the implementation of his kind undertakings. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“(2) The enforcement powers provided for in Schedule 1 are subject to oversight by—
(a) the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration,(b) the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and(c) HM Inspector of Prisons.”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, Amendment 12 provides for the enforcement powers provided for in Schedule 1 to be subject to oversight by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons. The powers introduced by Schedule 1 include escorting and searching detained persons and entering and searching premises. There is also provision for a wider interpretation of the general power to use reasonable force compared with that in previous immigration Acts, and the schedule increases the powers of immigration officers, including with regard to the power to use reasonable force.
This is an important issue, not least in the light of the inquest into death of Jimmy Mubenga in late 2010, following the restraint used as part of his deportation undertaken by a private sector company. In that case, the coroner determined that the cause of Mr Mubenga’s death was an unlawful killing under existing provisions of immigration law. The coroner highlighted several areas of concern, including lack of training in scenario planning in relation to the use of force by private sector companies, dangerous restraint techniques being used at that time and a lack of accreditation of particular officers.
As Schedule 1 now extends the powers regarding the use of reasonable force to previous immigration Acts and gives additional powers to immigration officers on escort, search and entry, we need at the very least some assurances that immigration officials will receive or are now receiving training on the use of restraint and reasonable force that is on a par with that given to police officers. We also need assurances that these increased enforcement powers will be subject to proper oversight, and by whom, and that that oversight will also apply to the private sector. Is it the Government’s intention to issue guidance on how the provisions of Schedule 1 should be enacted, not least the power to use reasonable force, or will it be left to each company and organisation involved to interpret as they see fit how and when to use the considerably enhanced powers that they are being given? Will it be left to each organisation affected to produce its own definition of reasonable force and the circumstances in which it can be used? I hope that that is not the case.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the concerns on this issue, already expressed earlier today, and that, in the light of the discussions that he has had with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on a possible code of practice, he will feel able to offer more than a belief—although genuine, I am sure—that everything will be all right on the night. I beg to move.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, Amendment 12 provides what I believe to be a necessary safeguard to reassure the public that those responsible for enforcement are fully accountable. Accountability is at the heart of all of this. This is surely an improvement as it ensures independent oversight by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Prisons, the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration of enforcement powers, such as searching persons and premises as well as the general power to use reasonable force. If we are confident that such powers are always fairly and humanely exercised, there is nothing to fear from this amendment. If we are not, then this amendment is absolutely necessary.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendment 12. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on bringing it forward.
It is very striking that the positions of the people mentioned who should be involved in oversight are intended to be independent. That is clear with regard to the IPCC, but is also the case with the Inspector of Prisons, as is exemplified by the remarkable record of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when he was Inspector of Prisons, and calls on an old tradition that rules will be enforced and kept in respect of the Prison Service, with a long and remarkable record among prison officers in terms of these expectations. I was a Minister of State in charge of prisons for a while and I was impressed by the level of responsibility shown, particularly by prison officers who had worked in prisons for a period of time. They often had a strong sense of responsibility for those with whom they worked, who were held in prisons in the ordinary criminal justice system. There has been nothing like the same level of expectation regarding rules or ethics within the immigration estate as we had in the Prison Service at its best.
Amendments 9 and 10 have already been discussed and I will not return to them, but I will say very loudly that they show how remarkably a concerned and responsible Minister can alter the culture and attitudes of those for whom he or she is responsible and over whom he or she has oversight. The problem, quite simply, is that the Home Office has not had that oversight, particularly in respect of the outsourcing of responsibility for people who are detained or who are held under the immigration provisions of many earlier Acts. That is only too clear in the complaints and concerns that arise over the handling and management of that estate. We are grateful for Amendments 9 and 10. They are very detailed and have been carefully worked out. However, I repeat the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about whether there is any training for immigration officers who now have the responsibility for enforcement. I will go further and ask whether the Home Office writes into its contracts with the private companies to which it extends the right to run these establishments a specific requirement that the practices that we hope to be embodied in the code will be upheld. Does it hold them responsible for reporting on any breaches of those rules and codes of practice? Does it hold them responsible for any accidents, injuries or deaths that occur in the establishments for which they are responsible? If the number of those is seen to be unusually high or if they are inexplicable, will real consideration be given to withdrawing the contracts as soon as possible? The contracts should clearly indicate that they are conditional on the proper running of those establishments.
Lord Ramsbotham
I will speak to Amendment 13, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for highlighting some of the points that were in the code of practice that I gave to the Minister, as I mentioned earlier. I did not read out all the points but I did mention that there were three codes that I had produced. One concerns the use of restraint. I will mention the three elements in that, which say that the Home Office must:
“Confirm the Independent Advisory Panel on Non-Compliance Management … as a permanent establishment”,
and that one member must have,
“experience of both the design and use of restraint techniques in a wide variety of settings, both custodial and non-custodial”.
The Home Office must also:
“Lay down precisely what safe and pain-free restraint techniques are acceptable in various situations such as vehicles transporting returnee to airport, transfer from vehicle to aircraft including in crowded airports, and in economy class on board commercial, passenger-carrying aircraft”.
Finally, the Home Office must “specify compulsory training requirements” for detainee custody officers,
“and other escorts, including compulsory continuation training”.
I repeat that because the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and myself, refers particularly to the use of the word “reasonableness”. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it was not reasonable force that caused the unlawful killing of Jimmy Mubenga in an airport, and the 78 other cases that I presented to the Home Office, along with numerous others. I suggest that the problem is that the Home Office has delegated all use of force to the contracting companies without overseeing it or insisting that anyone do so. I suggest to the Minister that it would be a very good thing if the Home Office thought through and tried to define what “reasonable” is.
It seems to me that there is a mnemonic, “JPLANS”, which provides the circumstances that must be honoured in using force. The letters stand for six phrases. The first: is the force “justifiable”? It might be lawful, but that does not make it justifiable. All other options must be considered before it is used. Secondly, it must be “proportionate” to the behaviour and consequence it was intended to prevent. Any force used should always be the minimum necessary to achieve a lawful objective.
Thirdly, it must be “lawful” in all circumstances and, provided the person has done what he honestly or instinctively thought was necessary in all the circumstances, and no more, that would be good evidence that he has acted reasonably and lawfully. Force must never be used as a punishment to intentionally cause pain, injury or humiliation. Fourthly, use of force must also be “accountable”; one must always be prepared to account for any force used. Force should be used only as a last resort, and one must be able to demonstrate that this was the case.
Fifthly, force must be “necessary” in all circumstances, and consideration should be given to any other reasonable alternatives: could the situation have been resolved without the use of force? Were risk assessments properly carried out before the removal to reduce tension and any consequent need to use force? Could this have included a planned meeting between the escort and the person they were escorting in order to try to build up a relationship that might remove the tension?
Finally, was the force used “safe and supportive”? Techniques and procedures must be applied correctly and safely, and the person on whom they are applied must be monitored to ensure their safety. There are some techniques and facilities that are known to give rise to a foreseeable risk of injuries. They are permitted only in extreme circumstances and will have to be justified by the member of staff who uses them.
I do not think that anyone writing “reasonable” without thinking it through can have applied the JPLANS test. I therefore suggest that the Minister considers a definition of “reasonable” whereby any use of force must be necessary, reasonable and proportionate, and applied for the minimum period necessary to achieve the lawful objective. If that definition were in the Bill, rather than just the word “reasonable”, I would find it a great deal easier to accept. I suspect that it would be much more supportive of the regime that I hope the independent advisory panel will impose, which should not consist merely of repeating techniques designed for use in custody that are wholly inappropriate when removing a detainee.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I wish to say a word or two in support of the amendment. Currently, the use of force by an immigration officer is licensed under the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 amends this to license the use of force under eight other Acts passed since 1971, and any future legislation that may be included in the definition of “the Immigration Acts”. The Explanatory Notes wrongly claim that this “clarifies” that the power is not limited to the exercise of powers under the 1971 and 1999 Acts, which would mean that the power already exists. In fact, the use of force under any of the eight Acts not already covered would be unlawful until the Bill is passed, as I hope my noble friend will concede.
No justification is given for this extension of the power to use force. On the contrary, there have been huge concerns about the use of existing powers, as in the case of Jimmy Mubenga, and in the report of the chief inspector on the use of force to remove a pregnant woman and her child via Cedars. The former Immigration Minister gave an assurance that the power to use force was confined to immigration officers as distinct from workers employed by private contractors on detention and removal activities. However, private contractors do use force, as has been mentioned and as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, found in her report of March 2010.
In the chief inspector’s report on an unannounced inspection of Harmondsworth in August last year, it was found that a wheelchair-bound, low-risk detainee who had suffered a stroke was handcuffed on a hospital visit, and other cases were noted in which the use of handcuffs was “grossly excessive”, including one case in which the individual was sedated and undergoing angioplasty, and another in which an 84 year-old man suffering from dementia died while still in handcuffs. It is clear that some immigration officers have no idea whatever about proportionality in the use of force—a matter that was referred to by the noble Lord Ramsbotham—and each and every extension of this power should be separately justified.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I repeat what I said earlier about the need for proper training and assessment of those who are legally able to use force. I do not have a great deal of confidence in some of these private companies, which have already failed in different ways. The Home Secretary should take very much to heart the suggestion that we need people who are able to exercise their duties in a way that is humane and within the Act because, as the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons regarding the use of force against pregnant women and children said, it must not be contemplated. We need a review of the whole procedure, which we can come out of with a feeling that at least the best that can be done is being done.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 13 of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Llandudno and Lord Ramsbotham. The trouble is that paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 widens the authorisation under which immigration officers can use “reasonable force” to cover all their powers in all immigration Acts, rather than just the specific powers of arrest, search and entry given in the 1971 and 1999 Acts. Such blanket permission for something as indefinable as “reasonable force”, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, illustrated, is pretty unwise.
Surely it is important that any extension of use of force by agents of the state is justified in detail, rather than in this sweeping manner. For example, the use of force against pregnant women or children in a variety of contexts is problematic. I support Amendment 13 and hope that it will go in the direction of the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, of what could be included in the Bill about what we mean by the rather blanket word, “reasonable”. What is reasonable to me may be completely unreasonable to another person, unless it is defined.
Lord Mawhinney (Con)
My Lords, I will not take up much of your Lordships’ time because what I had wanted to say was said much better by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. In my reading of Schedule 1, I noted the words:
“The power to search … may be exercised only to the extent reasonably required”.
I do not know what “reasonably required” means; I do not know what “reasonably” means, and I do not know what “required” means. By whom is the power to be used and against what standard? I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who knows that I am supportive of this legislation, that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has done your Lordships’ House a favour by enabling this short debate to take place. I hope that my noble friend will listen to the variety of views that reflect a similar theme on all sides of the House, and perhaps at a later stage come back with something that is slightly more definitive in relation to “reasonably required”.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, many noble Lords have mentioned training for immigration officers. What training do they have on understanding the medical conditions such as sickle cell disorder that those with African and Caribbean heritage may have, which can occur under stressful circumstances and may require immediate attention because they can lead to fatal strokes and even death?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it may be proper now to raise a point of detail on Amendment 12 in case the matter is taken any further. Noble Lords will know that the Bill applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. We see that in Clause 69, which applies to Schedule 1 as it does to most other provisions in the Bill. The problem with the amendment is that it refers to two people who have oversight of matters in England and Wales, but does not include their equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Certainly, so far as Scotland is concerned, there is a separate police complaints commissioner and there is a Scottish inspector of prisons. I am not sure of the details in Northern Ireland but they could no doubt be checked as well. My point is that if the oversight provisions are to be carried across all the jurisdictions, we should be careful to include and mention them in this particular clause.
There was a related point, which the Minister might like to confirm. I take it that the codes that have been referred to apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales. It is very important that there should be uniform standards throughout the entire country in these important matters.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, this has been a useful debate because it has enabled me to address a number of issues, some of which are the subject of the Bill's provisions and some of which go a little broader to address the role of contractors. The Bill itself and the amendments address only the powers vested in immigration officers. I would like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that effective regulatory oversight of the way in which the new enforcement powers in Schedule 1—and indeed other immigration powers—will be exercised, is already in place.
In England and Wales, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out, provides oversight of serious complaints, matters of conduct, and incidents involving immigration officers and officials of the Secretary of State exercising immigration and asylum enforcement powers. The IPCC’s remit also includes those officials exercising relevant customs and customs revenue functions within the UK Border Force. We should remember that this is UK-wide—there is no devolved power here. This is a reserved power for UK borders.
In relation to Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is quite right to point out that the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has the remit to investigate deaths and allegations of criminality in respect of immigration and customs matters. In addition, all complaints about immigration officers and officials of the Secretary of State who are exercising immigration and asylum enforcement powers in Scotland may be investigated by the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner. That does not change under these provisions.
To ensure that this scrutiny is truly nationwide, we have included a provision in Clause 59, following agreement with the Northern Ireland Executive, to enable the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland to provide oversight of serious incidents, complaints and conduct matters in Northern Ireland where immigration and customs enforcement powers are exercised. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons has a statutory responsibility to report on the conditions and treatment in all places of immigration detention in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the UK’s border and immigration functions as a whole, including the use of enforcement powers such as those in Schedule 1, are subject to the independent scrutiny of the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Mr John Vine.
My noble friend Lord Mawhinney asked what was meant by “reasonably required” because that seemed to exercise a number of noble Lords. It means to the extent of finding the object of the search and no further. Indeed, noble Lords might be surprised to know that immigration officers have powers to search people who are being examined in ports for passports and other relevant documents, but they are not permitted to search those in detention for weapons or other dangerous articles that might cause harm to themselves or others. A protective search power is currently only available in respect of people who have actually been arrested. Immigration officers have a number of powers to enter and search premises for the purposes of finding material that would facilitate the investigation of current immigration offences. But the powers do not apply to illegal immigrants in immigration detention who have been arrested by immigration criminal investigators rather than the police.
A further example is that officers can search for relevant documents in the home of an arrested person or the premises at which they were arrested. They are not permitted to search the premises of a third party—for example, those of a relative or partner. The Government, quite rightly, are seeking to ensure that immigration officers have the powers that are currently available to contractors but not to immigration officers themselves.
Lord Mawhinney
I hope that my noble friend will excuse me because I readily acknowledge that he knows much more about this subject in detail than I do, but is he telling us that the words “reasonably required” relate only to the object of the search rather than to the way in which the search is carried out?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The use of force has to be reasonably exercised. In the case of search, that has to be reasonable too. The answer is that it is not an either/or. Reasonableness is at the heart of the process. I hope that that satisfies my noble friend.
Lord Mawhinney
I assume from what my noble friend said that he will go on to define, as other noble Lords have asked, who sets the standard of reasonableness and who monitors it in this context.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I set out earlier detail on those people who are responsible for oversight in this matter. Indeed, the training procedures and codes that apply in this area are designed especially to ensure that the people exercising these functions are properly aware of what is considered to be proportionate. I do not think that it is an unusual situation for anyone carrying out activity on behalf of a government agency. Reasonableness is perfectly well understood, which I think most noble Lords will know. I hope that I am being reasonable in the way in which I am answering my noble friend's question.
A number of noble Lords questioned the role of private contractors in this area. As I have explained, the amendments do not address private contractors. But detention staff are subject to a number of oversight and monitoring bodies. All complaints concerning the use of control and restraint are referred to the UKBA Professional Standards Unit, which passes all such allegations to the appropriate bodies such as the police or other oversight bodies where appropriate, and I have explained who they are.
In addition, independent monitoring boards, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman can conduct unannounced inspections of detention premises. Independent observers from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons and from independent monitoring boards also monitor a number of removal flights from the UK and I am intending to go on one such flight in a few weeks’ time.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
Before the Minister concludes his extremely reasonable remarks, may I press him on one point? Those companies to whom the conduct of these issues is outsourced need more than simple reference on to the Chief Inspector of Prisons or the IPCC. Could I therefore press him, before he concludes, about whether we can build in serious incentives to the companies to which these activities are outsourced so that they recognise that their contracts will be at risk if they fail to carry out the expectations of the conduct and behaviour that we are laying upon them in this very sensitive area?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York joined the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in raising the question of the effectiveness of quality control in terms of outcomes, how we enforce contracts, and whether we hold contractors responsible. We do exactly that. We have contract monitoring teams at each detention facility and individual detention and escort contractors are certified by the Secretary of State, and this certification can be withdrawn. As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will know, a new training programme is being undertaken by the Home Office in this area. I have invited him to come along and look at the programme and perhaps contribute to its development because we feel it is very important that at the heart of good practice in this area lies oversight on the one hand, good management on the other and, at the bottom of all of that, good training for the operatives. I think it would be the wish of the House and, indeed, the Home Office that that is provided for. My noble friend Lady Benjamin asked if there was particular training given to officers on medical conditions. I am not in a position to give that answer on the spot but I am happy to write to her.
I turn to Amendment 13. We should make it clear that the provision to extend the use of force affects only immigration officers and does not make any change to the powers of contractors, those detainee custody officers and escorts, who have separate statutory powers to use reasonable force in their functions. We believe that immigration officers should be able to use their powers to the fullest extent, where it is necessary. If paragraph 5 were to be removed, it would not affect the majority of immigration powers of examination, arrest, entry, search, detention and fingerprinting, where officers are able to use reasonable force if necessary, as most of these are contained within the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as my noble friend Lord Avebury pointed out.
However, there are a small number of coercive powers, which sit in later legislation, where there is no specific reference to the use of reasonable force. Although the use of force is currently implied, we intend that this should be set out explicitly in statute to ensure greater transparency. The use of force in these situations may be necessary for immigration officers to carry out their role effectively and safely, and I have given illustrations of that earlier in my response. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be hard to see, for example, how immigration officers could safely arrest a person for the offence of assaulting an immigration officer if they were unable to use reasonable force to restrain that person. It should be noted that the new enforcement powers proposed in the Bill make amendments to either the Immigration Act 1971 or the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, so will already be covered by the existing provision for immigration officers to use reasonable force where necessary.
I can assure noble Lords that only immigration officers who are fully trained and accredited may use force. Arrest training is currently provided by the College of Policing, and training on the use of force, including control and restraint techniques, is in line with ACPO standards. Published guidance explains that the use of force must be proportionate, lawful, necessary, and age appropriate. It also sets out that force should be used for the shortest possible period, should be the minimum needed, should be used only when all other avenues of securing co-operation have been exhausted, and should be de-escalated as soon as possible.
Every instance where force is used is recorded in a comprehensive incident report. Out of 14,598 enforcement visits in the financial year 2012-13, force against the person was used in a little over 2% of cases. The issue of whether that use of force was reasonable must be justified on a case-by-case basis, as I have been explaining to my noble friend Lord Mawhinney. The extension of the power to use reasonable force will ensure that existing powers are able to be operated effectively, that they are in step with other law enforcement bodies’ powers, and that current enforcement practices are not at any risk of legal challenge on the grounds that the ability to use force is not explicitly set out in statute. Now I hope that I have been able to explain the context in which these provisions of the Bill are being proposed. In the light of these points, I hope that noble Lords will be reassured and feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Rosser
Is the Minister still looking at what I understand is a code of practice—which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has discussed with him—or are we to take it that the answer he has just given means that he does not see the need for a code of practice?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I think I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, by the actions I took following the meeting that I had with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He gave me a copy of the code of practice that he had produced following his review and I was pleased to take it back to the Home Office and feed it into the department. I would like to believe that the points that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made are being reflected in the approach that the Home Office is taking at the moment. There is naturally great interest in what he is suggesting. As I said, we are looking forward to the opportunity to allow him engagement with us on the development of the training programme.
Lord Rosser
I am not entirely sure whether that means the code of practice will see the light of day in any schedule to the Bill or whether it simply—I do not use the word “simply” in a derogatory way—means that the Minister intends that the Home Office may take account of what is in that code of practice in the practices that the Home Office seeks to ensure are adopted. I think the answer I have had is the latter rather than the former. That is what the Minister’s response indicates. As I understand it, the Minister said in his reply that the oversight powers throughout the United Kingdom are already there through the relevant postholder or commission. I think he has said that the extension of powers under Schedule 1 apply only to immigration officers and not to private contractors, and that appropriate training is or will be given in relation to the extension of the powers on reasonable force. That is what I have understood from the replies the Minister has given.
I shall obviously want to read in Hansard the words the Minister has actually used since it is easy to gain an impression when it is not the correct one. However, I thank him for his detailed response and, if noble Lords will forgive me for not naming them all, I thank them for taking part in the debate on these amendments. I was particularly impressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, who indicated that my amendment should have gone further than it did. I am not often told that, but there we are. I have to say that the points she made were extremely relevant. In the light of what the Minister has said, and on the basis that I intend to read his words carefully in Hansard to make sure that I have understood them fully, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
Before my noble friend the Minister sits down, can he tell me how many employees of these companies have been dismissed for this sort of heavy-handed behaviour?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I did feel rather comfortable until the noble Lord suggested that I had not yet sat down. I cannot give him the answer to that question, but if it is possible to do so, I will write to him.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“Restrictions on detention of unaccompanied children
(1) Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (administrative provisions as to control on entry etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 16, after paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) But the detention of an unaccompanied child under sub-paragraph (2) is subject to paragraph 18B.”
(3) In paragraph 18, after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) But the detention of an unaccompanied child under paragraph 16(2) is subject to paragraph 18B.”
(4) After paragraph 18A (as inserted by paragraph 2 of Schedule 1) insert—
“18B (1) Where a person detained under paragraph 16(2) is an unaccompanied child, the only place where the child may be detained is a short-term holding facility, except where—
(a) the child is being transferred to or from a short-term holding facility, or(b) sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 18 applies.(2) An unaccompanied child may be detained under paragraph 16(2) in a short-term holding facility for a maximum period of 24 hours, and only for so long as the following two conditions are met.
(3) The first condition is that—
(a) directions are in force that require the child to be removed from the short-term holding facility within the relevant 24 hour period, or(b) a decision on whether or not to give directions is likely to result in such directions.(4) The second condition is that the immigration officer under whose authority the child is being detained reasonably believes that the child will be removed from the short-term holding facility within the relevant 24 hour period in accordance with those directions.
(5) An unaccompanied child detained under paragraph 16(2) who has been removed from a short-term holding facility and detained elsewhere may be detained again in a short-term holding facility but only if, and for as long as, the relevant 24 hour period has not ended.
(6) An unaccompanied child who has been released following detention under paragraph 16(2) may be detained again in a short-term holding facility in accordance with this paragraph.
“(7) In this paragraph—
“relevant 24 hour period”, in relation to the detention of a child in a short-term holding facility, means the period of 24 hours starting when the child was detained (or, in a case falling within sub-paragraph (5), first detained) in a short-term holding facility;“short-term holding facility” has the same meaning as in Part 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;“unaccompanied child” means a person—(a) who is under the age of 18, and(b) who is not accompanied (whilst in detention) by his or her parent or another individual who has care of him or her.”.”
“Pre-departure accommodation for families
(1) Part 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (removal centres and detained persons) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 147 (interpretation)—
(a) after the definition of “custodial functions” insert—““detained children” means detained persons who are under the age of 18;”;
(b) after the definition of “escort monitor” insert—““pre-departure accommodation” means a place used solely for the detention of detained children and their families for a period of—
(a) not more than 72 hours, or(b) not more than seven days in cases where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975);”;(c) in the definition of “removal centre”, after “facility,” insert “pre-departure accommodation,”;(d) in the definition of “short-term holding facility”, at the end insert—“but which is not pre-departure accommodation.”
(3) In section 155 (custodial functions and discipline), in subsection (2), at the end insert “and in pre-departure accommodation”.
(4) After section 157 insert—
“157A Pre-departure accommodation
(1) The following provisions of this Part apply to pre-departure accommodation as they apply to removal centres—
(a) section 149 (contracting out of certain removal centres);(b) section 150 (contracting out functions at directly managed removal centres);(c) section 151 (intervention by Secretary of State).(2) In the application of those provisions to pre-departure accommodation—
(a) references to a removal centre contract are to be read as a contract made under section 149(1) for the provision or running of pre-departure accommodation;(b) references to a contracted out removal centre are to be read as references to pre-departure accommodation in relation to which a contract under section 149(1) is in force;(c) references to a directly managed removal centre are to be read as references to pre-departure accommodation in relation to which there is no contract under section 149(1) in force;(d) references to removal centre rules are to be read as references to rules made under subsection (4).(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend to pre-departure accommodation any other provision made by or under this Part in relation to removal centres.
(4) The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation and management of pre-departure accommodation.”.”
Baroness Hamwee
“Presumption of liberty
(1) In the event of an application for bail from detention, an immigration office or the First-tier Tribunal must release the detained person on bail unless the First-tier Tribunal is satisfied that there are substantial grounds for belief that if released the person would—
(a) fail to comply with one or more of the conditions of bail or of any recognisance or bond, or(b) while on bail commit an offence which is punishable by imprisonment.(2) In subsection (1), “detention” has the same meaning as in Schedules 2 and 3 to the Immigration Act 1971.”
Baroness Hamwee
In moving Amendment 16 I shall speak also to Amendments 20 and 21, and included in this group are Amendments 17, 18 and 19. The first of the amendments sets out a new clause headed, “Presumption of liberty”, which covers exactly what it says. I find the term “bail” quite difficult in this context, with its connotations of the criminal justice system. Detention—or imprisonment, to be blunt about it—should require a positive decision: the rebuttal of a presumption, if you like.
The amendment may read as if I am introducing a philosophical debate, which I suppose I am, but in a rather less high-minded way I am seeking to put into the legislation what is set out in chapter 55.1.1 of the Home Office manual, Enforcement Instructions and Guidance, which states:
“The power to detain must be retained in the interests of maintaining effective immigration control. However, there is a presumption in favour of temporary admission or release and, wherever possible, alternatives to detention are used”.
I hope that the Minister will not argue that this is invariably followed because, like other noble Lords, I am sure, I have been given a number of examples of detention where it would be hard to argue that that is so. We are told that the UK detains people for longer than any other European country. As of July last year, 27 people had been detained for between 18 and 24 months, 11 for between 24 and 36 months and one person for up to 48 months. In December last year, some 220 people had been detained for more than six months. Many people are now detained in prisons where detention tends to go on for longer periods.
There are also a number of examples of inappropriate detention. Here I turn to my second amendment, which concerns the detention of people with mental illness. I say “inappropriate detention” as being what might be called a commensurate judicial criticism of their treatment and findings that the detention of people who are mentally ill is unlawful and breaches their Article 3 rights. I do not doubt that there will have been cases we do not know about which were settled before a full hearing, as happens a good deal in this area.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, although there are other speakers in this debate, I am rising early because I have a number of questions and I thought it would be helpful to give the noble Lord time to seek inspiration to respond to them.
As we have heard, Clause 3 amends the Immigration Act 1971 to ensure that in certain circumstances, that is, where removal is scheduled for the next 14 days, the Home Secretary must consent before a person is released on bail. It also amends the tribunal procedural rules to prevent repeat bail applications in the absence of a material change in circumstances, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Our Amendment 18 is very specific. It specifies:
“In deciding whether to give consent to bail, the Home Secretary will consider whether the applicant is pregnant”.
Matters have not been very clear so this is a probing amendment. We chose the issue of pregnancy but we could have chosen anything else. The reason for tabling this amendment is more general. We are seeking clarification as to when the Home Secretary will approve bail, and what additional considerations will be taken into account.
Reading the clause and reading the debates that took place in the other place, it seems that there is a lack of clarity about what is intended by this clause. We understand that shortly before a person is due to be removed, there is a higher risk of absconding, and that it is right that in those circumstances bail should not be granted when the risk of absconding is high, unless—as the Government state at present and in the Bill—there are exceptional circumstances. The government statement of intent says:
“If the immigration judge considers that there are exceptional circumstances that mean an individual should be granted bail, despite removal being imminent, the Secretary of State will give serious consideration to release”.
Then it cites possible examples, including persons who are recently bereaved or have complex medical requirements.
It would be interesting to know what other circumstances the Government envisage here and to hear other examples of issues that should be considered by the Secretary of State when bail is being granted. We have proposed that one of them is being pregnant but I assume that the Government have other issues in mind. We have heard about mental health examples. That is one that came to mind, as well as primary care givers for young children or where somebody is dying. I appreciate that the pregnancy one is a narrow example. I am trying to understand how the government proposal works in practice and whether it will be effective or make any difference at all. For example, I should have thought that the risk of somebody absconding is something that the tribunal would take into account at the moment, as with bereavement and complex medical needs. What additional factors would then be taken into account by the Secretary of State that are not currently taken into account by the tribunal? If there are matters that should be taken into account by the tribunal but are currently ignored, should not the tribunal rules or the guidance be amended?
Under the Bill, the final decision would rest with the Secretary of State, so it is important to understand how and according to what factors and processes she—or perhaps in future, he—will make her decision. I found the debate in the other place in Committee quite helpful. The Minister there, when asked on the above point what other considerations would the Secretary of State take into account, said:
“The Secretary of State will consider the same factors as a tribunal, but she has ultimate responsibility for enforcing immigration action”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 5/11/13; col. 165.]
If no new factors are to be considered, why not leave the decision with the tribunal? It would be helpful to hear and understand the evidence showing that this measure is necessary, and showing how it would make a difference. Will the Home Secretary re-examine the evidence put before the tribunal, or will she exercise her power on other grounds even though that is not what the Minister, Norman Baker, said in the other place? It would also be helpful to understand the cost implications of any challenge to the Secretary of State’s decision. Again, the Government’s statement of intent says:
“Legality of detention will still be challengeable by way of judicial review or habeas corpus applications”.
However, given that the Secretary of State will exercise the power in this clause only when the immigration judge has said that there are exceptional circumstances that mean that an individual should be granted bail, if there is no clarity about the grounds on which the Home Secretary is making her decision, does that make a legal challenge more likely?
Further, given that a case of unlawful detention, if it were brought, would be heard in the High Court, is there not a danger of it becoming more expensive and more time-consuming, and causing more delays and imposing more costs to the taxpayer, than the fairly simple decision of whether to grant bail? The Government say that the current system costs money. That is one of the reasons for introducing the new measure. What consideration has been given to the possible costs of challenges under this system? My colleague Helen Jones asked this point in the Commons and the Minister, Norman Baker, did not really address the point, so it would be helpful if the Minister was able to respond today.
Leaving costs aside, what about those who cannot afford a judicial review claim? What will their recourse be if they believe a decision is wrong and the Home Secretary has overruled the immigration judge? Let us be clear: this matter goes to the Home Secretary to refuse an application for bail only if the immigration judge has said that there are exceptional circumstances in which bail should be granted. Therefore, I am still somewhat confused about whether the Home Secretary will take into account matters other than those considered by the tribunal and the immigration judge. Norman Baker says that she will not, but that raises the question about the evidence base for this change. From the response of Norman Baker in Committee in the other place, it appears that the Home Secretary could be making a political decision in overruling the immigration judge. There must be a concern that the decision-making process is therefore open to greater and more expensive legal challenge.
In trying to understand the clause, it would be helpful to clarify whether, when a bail applicant is told of a bail decision, they will be told whether the decision has been taken by an immigration judge or the Home Secretary. If they are not granted bail, will they know that in some circumstances that may have been a decision where the Home Secretary has overruled the immigration judge who has said that there are exceptional circumstances? Will the applicant know what the process is in that case? If, as Norman Baker has said, no new factors will be taken into account, the question will be whether the decision has been taken on the facts, or whether it has been taken on political grounds. Unless it is absolutely clear what criteria the Home Secretary has used, surely that could make it far more likely that those decisions will be legally challenged.
I am genuinely trying to fully understand why the Government are bringing forward the change. What difference will it make, if there is no difference in the criteria looked at, and what are the cost implications of what could be an increase in the number of judicial reviews? I have read the debate in the other place and the material that the Minister and the Government have provided, and these questions remain outstanding. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide some clarity on these points and the reason for this clause.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 17 and 19 about bail. The provisions in our amendments are modelled on Part 3 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was never brought into force and repealed in 2002. We ask, first, what has changed since 1999 that the sense of gravity about the shortcomings of the system of immigration detention and the urgency of addressing them has gone so entirely? One thing is certain: they have not gone because things have got better. Things have got very much worse.
In these amendments, we propose automatic bail hearings after eight and 36 days. How long have we debated the need to provide for an effective automatic review of detention? Detention under Immigration Act powers is a matter, I am told, mainly of administrative convenience and, in the UK, is not subject to a maximum period. A detained person is not brought before a tribunal judge or a court unless he or she instigates this. The lack of any maximum period of detention, combined with the lack of regular and independent review of detention, may render this detention arbitrary. Amnesty International is one of those organisations that has powerfully advocated that every immigration detention decision should be automatically checked to see whether it is lawful, necessary and appropriate. Why should we do this? Because, at present, there are greater safeguards for criminal subjects than there are for immigration detainees and because people sometimes need reminding that those detained for immigration purposes are not criminals and have not committed any crime.
The group Bail for Immigration Detainees found that 23% of detainees surveyed had never had a solicitor while in detention. Of those who had, only one-third had ever had an application for release on bail made for them during their time in detention. When this is considered alongside the general length of immigration detention in the UK, and the possible indefinite nature of that detention, adequate bail provision is an absolute necessity. Automatic hearings would benefit all detainees but especially vulnerable and isolated detainees. Very recently, we heard the case here of Isa Muazu. I can speak to his pain as I went to see him. He was one among many who should not have been locked up with all the problems he had.
We must protect the rights of vulnerable groups such as the mentally ill, torture victims, victims of sexual violence and victims of trafficking. Currently, almost one in four detainees is held in the prison estate, where they face many practical and procedural barriers to accessing immigration advice and the immigration tribunals where they can try to obtain bail. They are not able to instigate applications in any meaningful way—it is a dreadful situation. Will, finally, this Bill include a provision that will remedy such a sorry situation?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I, too, will speak to Amendment 17. When I was the Bishop of Oxford, I had something to do with Campsfield House. What really concerned us at that time was the length of time for which people were held in detention. It is not at all encouraging that, some years later, this is still a major concern. As we know, around 220 people last year were held in detention for more than six months, without even taking into account the 936 who are held in prison. Why is this country so different from the rest of Europe in having no limit on the length of time that people can spend in detention? It is obvious, from so many of the facts and figures that are put before us, that a time limit helps you to achieve your purpose of removing people who have no legal right to be in the country. France, for example, has a time limit of 45 days for people in detention and it enforces 31% more removals of irregular immigrants and asylum seekers than the United Kingdom. We all know that if you do not have a deadline, things can slip and slip. Those of us who write are grateful that there is always a deadline, otherwise we would never get it done. If that applies with simple things such as writing, how much more are things liable to slip when trying to deal with a person’s case?
To reiterate the point, it has also been shown that the longer people are held in detention, the less chance they will be removed. Only 37% of those who were detained for more than a year were eventually removed, compared with 57% of those who were there for less than 28 days. Again, so many facts show that having a limit, such as 28 days, allows you to achieve what you want far more efficiently. That is, of course, without even taking into account the expense. It has been estimated that this amendment would save something like £87 million if it were accepted, because it is very expensive to keep people in detention.
There are alternatives. In Australia, for example, where there is an alternative based on case management, there is a compliance rate of something like 93%, of which 60% are voluntary removals. This is even without taking into account the human factor and the distress and extra suffering caused by allowing people to be detained. From the point of view of financial efficiency, and every other consideration, it is surely right that other alternatives should be looked at much more seriously than they are at the moment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I support these amendments. I should explain that at an earlier stage in my judicial career it was necessary for me to visit prisons so that I could see the conditions under which people were being held and understand the regimes that were being operated in these establishments. I recall very clearly visiting one of these places, where I came across people of the kind we are discussing this evening—detainees awaiting decisions about their immigration status. It struck me at the time that it was quite extraordinary to meet these individuals—who, after all, had either committed no offence or, if they had, had served their sentences—being held in prison conditions along with other prisoners. It is fair to say that a separate wing was set aside for them; nevertheless, the conditions in which they were being held were prison conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said that it was a dreadful situation. I must say that I found it quite offensive to meet these people there when I spoke to them and discovered why they were there and what their problems were.
It seems that there is a great deal of force in Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, about the presumption of liberty, which takes us right back to the beginning of the exercise we are discussing. The points that are built into that amendment are those that would occur to any judge considering an application for bail in this situation. Most judges would, I think, see that the question to ask oneself is whether the individual would fail to comply with conditions or was likely to commit an offence. The value of having that set out in the Bill is that it will achieve some uniform standard throughout the system. The difficulty is that you have immigration officers and First-tier Tribunals up and down the country, and there will not be the same attention, uniformity of practice, application of presumptions and so on that one gets if the matter is set out in terms in the Bill. I would have thought that the matter was sufficiently important to do that, so that it would carry itself through the various steps that have been discussed by other noble Lords, with everybody knowing where they stand.
We are dealing here with people, many of whom will be held in prison conditions, who have either not committed an offence, or who have served their sentence and are being detained because time needs to go by for decisions about their status to be taken—that is all. It seems right that they should be given the benefit of the presumption of liberty.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I cannot claim first-hand experience like other noble Lords, but I went to a meeting chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, where we heard from organisations that work with immigrants in detention. I thought that a powerful case was made—and has been made by other noble Lords—for the principles behind Amendments 16 and 17 in particular.
I will quote from a recent report by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law that emphasised as its cardinal principle the assumption of liberty. It stated another principle:
“The duration of detention must be within a prescribed applicable maximum duration, only invoked where justified”.
The report quotes a number of statements from the United Nations, in particular UNHCR detention guidelines that state:
“To guard against arbitrariness, maximum periods of detention should be set in national legislation. Without maximum periods, detention can become prolonged, and in some cases indefinite”.
It also quotes from a UNHCR global round table on alternatives to detention for asylum seekers, refugees, migrants and stateless persons, which states:
“Maximum time limits on ... administrative immigration detention in national legislation are an important step to avoiding prolonged or indefinite detention. Lack of knowledge about the end date of detention is seen as one of the most stressful aspects of immigration detention, in particular for stateless persons and migrants who cannot be removed for legal or practical reasons”.
I am sure that I do not have remind noble Lords that we will probably have rather more people in that position as a result of Clause 60 of the Bill.
Let us put ourselves in the shoes of people who are detained. What would it feel like not knowing how long you are going to be detained? I am not surprised that it is one of the most stressful things. I think that not having that knowledge could drive people over the edge, particularly when I hear about the conditions in which some people are being kept.
The UN Committee Against Torture urged the UK to introduce,
“a limit for immigration detention and take all necessary steps to prevent cases of de facto indefinite detention”.
We have already heard from other noble Lords that we are out of step with many other European countries and that there is no justification for it, not only on grounds of humanity but also of effectiveness. I hope that the Minister will listen to what is being said across the House and take it away to consider a possible amendment on Report.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendments 17 and 19 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. I agree with every word that my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries said. Following my inspection of Campsfield after a riot there, I raised for the first time my concern about one group of people who were being held in prisons: they were to be deported at the end of their sentence.
We have been talking about enforced removals and people sentenced to be deported are enforced removals. It seems to be absolute nonsense not to process that deportation while those people are serving their prison sentences, so that at the end of their sentence they go straight to the airport and out. Instead, what happens at the moment is that they go from prison into a detention centre and then the deportation process starts. That is causing an intense clogging in the detention centres. Having disaffected prisoners awaiting deportation in a detention centre also causes unrest in the centre, which was the case at Campsfield.
Lord Judd
My Lords, last Thursday in the Moses Room we were debating terrorism. In the context of that debate some of us were raising the issues of immigration. This is a specific and good example of the danger that some of us foresee. Forgive me if I repeat a bit of what I said on Thursday. Extremists operate best in a climate of ambivalence, one in which a significant number of people—particularly young people but not only young people—are pursued by doubt. They may not like what the extremists do. They may actually abhor the actions themselves, but they sometimes wonder whether those extremists are perhaps acting on their side.
This does not create a climate in which everyone is busting a gut to co-operate with the security services. There are anxieties and doubts. Ruthless recruiters for extremism play on that kind of ambivalence. I can think of no area such as the one that we are debating that illustrates better the point that I am making. If it can be said that we have double standards of justice and that we do not live up to the ideals that we like to proclaim to the world as essential, and if it seems that freedom is not a complete but a relative principle—something that you like to apply when you can and when it is inconvenient you do not apply it—sometimes very intelligent people begin to raise queries. It does not take many people to be in such a state of anxiety and doubt for the extremists to make more recruits. It takes only a very few people in the age in which we live to do terrible things in the context of terrorist action. If we are going to win the cause of wooing people away from terrorism and extremism, it is a battle for hearts and minds. That kernel of toughness should be in all that we do. The battle for hearts and minds means that we should live up to the principles we proclaim and make them transparently clear in all the practice of policy throughout the penal system and, particularly because of the complications of international terrorism, in the sphere of migration.
I hope that when the Government consider their response to these issues they do some connective thinking and ensure that at the very time when we are desperately anxious about, for example, the implications of Syria in terms of accentuated terrorist activity, we are doing nothing that inadvertently even marginally plays into the hands of extremists.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I very much agree with what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and what was said by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth.
I will be very quick because the debate is going on. It is worth remembering that in 2008 the European Commission produced a directive which said that the maximum period for detention was normally six months and that in exceptional cases 12 months could be added to that, with an absolute limit of 18 months in every single case. It is not to the great credit of our dear country that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland both decided to opt out of that directive. Consequently, we, as one of the world’s oldest and most stable democracies, have to our discredit the shame of having people detained in prison conditions month after month, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, pointed out. We should say that the time is well over when we can continue to try to justify this kind of thing.
We could have a limited period; for example, the Federal Republic of Germany has a maximum period of two months as normal practice. We have already heard that France has 45 days. Spain has a serious terrorism problem—as serious as ours, possibly more so—yet retains two months as its normal limit. It is beyond my understanding and belief how this country has continued to leave this issue without seriously addressing it and saying that the time has come for us to opt back in to the directive and ensure that we never exceed 18 months for any case at all.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the contribution of my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby is probably a good place to start. The deprivation of liberty is a very serious matter so I will first set out the safeguards that are currently in place to ensure that detention powers are used appropriately. Although there is a power to detain, the Home Office has a policy presumption in favour of temporary admission or release. Wherever possible, alternatives to detention are used. Detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period necessary. I hope that that reassures the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Williams.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, asked why we do not have a time limit on detention. That was echoed by a number of subsequent speakers. The current system is derived from case law, specifically a case called Hardial Singh. The system works well, is understood by the tribunal and other judges, and has been authoritatively restated by the Supreme Court in a case called Lumba. The system affords appropriate protections to individuals and flexibility to the Government. It is not indefinite detention: every case is carefully and regularly considered to see whether detention continues to remain appropriate. Regular reviews of detention are required to be undertaken to ensure that detention remains lawful and proportionate, and individuals can apply for bail and challenge the legality of detention by judicial review, as has been stated.
I reassure noble Lords that these safeguards are also built into the provision already included in the Bill. Clause 3 will not prevent an individual from applying for bail immediately after being placed in immigration detention. Likewise, an individual can challenge the legality of their detention at any point by way of judicial review, and legal aid will remain in place for this. The existing internal formal reviews of detention will also remain. I reassure noble Lords that detainees will have full access to legal advice.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee wanted to know more about the requirement to decide on the papers. She asked what qualified as a “material change in circumstances”. It will vary on a case-to-case basis and the tribunal will decide whether that test is met. An example could be a significant deterioration in someone’s health over a short period. The provision will not apply where there are genuine reasons to seek a further hearing because there are materially different grounds to consider. If the tribunal concludes on the papers that there are material changes that need to be considered, it will proceed to a hearing and can grant bail if it thinks it right to do so.
Noble Lords should also be aware that the Tribunal Procedure Committee has consulted on placing a time limit on repeat bail applications. The committee may have proposed implementing the requirement through the Tribunal Rules rather than in primary legislation, as here, but it is clear that repeat applications on the same facts are a concern to the Tribunal Procedure Committee.
I want to highlight to noble Lords the context of the requirement for the Secretary of State to consent to the grant of bail where removal is 14 days or fewer away. Rather than introducing a new power, the Government are clarifying existing legislation to block immigration bail granted by the tribunal, defining an existing power. Under paragraph 30 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State can prevent bail being granted while someone is pursuing their appeal at any stage,
“if directions for the removal of the appellant from the UK are for the time being in force or the power to give such directions is for the time being exercisable”.
The Government consider that the proposal in the Bill requiring the Secretary of State’s consent to release on bail 14 days prior to removal is a proportionate approach. As I have explained, this proposal actually represents a reduction in the powers available to prevent the grant of bail. In that context, I hope that noble Lords will not feel unduly concerned about this condition.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked whether exercising this veto would not just cause people to seek judicial review, thereby delaying removal and creating an expense. A judicial review would not have to be pursued in-country. Removal would therefore not need to be postponed. There are obvious savings from proceeding with removal and not allowing anyone to remain in the country either in detention or on bail with conditions.
We should try to get some of these figures in proportion. Admittedly some individuals have been detained for considerable periods of time but 62% have been in detention for fewer than 29 days, and the total number of people who have been in detention for more than a year is 199. In terms of proportion, this system is therefore dealing effectively with the vast majority of detainees.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the amendment, but he will know that that was not the substance of the questions that I asked. It was used as an example to raise two issues, the first being the criteria that the Home Secretary would use and the second, significantly, whether an individual who had had bail denied would be told whether the Secretary of State had overruled the tribunal judge. The amendment was just probing. If the Minister could address the questions that I asked, I would be grateful.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I was about to go on to develop the theme based on the noble Baroness’s example. I cannot give an exhaustive list of the circumstances where the Secretary of State might consider it right to intervene, but examples which we have already given in the statement of intent are good ones. Mental health and family bereavement are examples of such circumstances which I hope the noble Baroness will understand. We expect the power to be exercised in a relatively small number of cases.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think the Minister has missed the point that I made. I was probing not what the exact examples would be but the criteria that the Secretary of State would use given that she will have the ability to overturn a decision by a tribunal judge. In the other place, Norman Baker said that there were no other grounds that she would look at, yet that begs the question about it being a political decision. What grounds will the Secretary of State use if she decides to overturn the decision of a tribunal judge?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope that the examples I have given show that these are not trifling matters. Deterioration in a person’s mental health or a family bereavement are changes in the circumstances of the applicant which would mean that the Secretary of State was able to make an immediate decision without it having to go back to the tribunal for a bail hearing. This is the Secretary of State using her executive power to ensure that in circumstances where people are significantly disadvantaged by a change in their conditions the matter can be resolved. If the noble Baroness wishes me to elaborate further, I shall do my best to explain it to her in writing so that she has something more positive than just a few scattered notes from which I am addressing her.
Amendment 19 would have the effect of creating many unnecessary bail hearings in the tribunal, increasing the inefficiency and complexity of the system. An individual can still apply for immigration bail at any time or challenge the legality of their detention by way of judicial review. A significant number of individuals are released on bail by the Home Office without the need for a bail hearing—we have just heard examples of why that is so—and so to mandate a requirement in primary legislation to require bail hearings to take place will unnecessarily increase the number of hearings and will slow the system and add complexity.
Amendments 20 and 21 would make two changes. First, they would limit judicial discretion to maintain detention of those who are suffering from mental health concerns or of those who are under 17 where the judge considers immigration detention remains appropriate for their own or, in the case of those with mental health concerns, others’ protection. Secondly, the amendments would remove the requirement for repeat applications made within 28 days of a previous application where there has not been a material change in circumstances, made under the bail provisions in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, to be decided without a hearing.
Published guidance provides that certain categories of people are considered unsuitable for detention in the first place unless there are very exceptional circumstances in play. Unaccompanied young people under the age of 18 and those suffering from serious mental illness which cannot be satisfactorily managed within detention are specifically listed as case types that should be detained only in very exceptional circumstances. However, there will always be cases with very exceptional circumstances which mean that detention is appropriate. An example may be when it is necessary for detention to continue while an individual is being or waiting to be assessed or awaiting transfer under the Mental Health Act. We may also need to hold unaccompanied children where, for example, it is in the public interest because of a risk of reoffending or a risk to national security. They may also be held for a very short period either on arrival pending collection by social services or when we are trying to remove them. In any decision to hold an unaccompanied child, we will consider our duty to safeguard and protect the welfare of children.
The noble Lords’ amendment would prevent a judge in a bail hearing from considering if very exceptional circumstances are in play and would require judges to release individuals even where there is the real possibility that this will put them into a more vulnerable situation or where they clearly pose a threat to themselves or others. Amendment 21 seeks to remove the requirement for the Tribunal Procedure Committee to change the rules to require repeat applications to be disposed of without a hearing, thus undermining the Government’s proposals. It would also allow the current inefficient bail processes to remain in place.
However, I have listened to the points made by noble Lords in this debate. It has been a good debate about a very important aspect of the provisions of the Bill. I will consider those points before we return on Report. In the mean time, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, other noble Lords have spoken very effectively about the impact of detention. I will just mention again the first of the amendments in this group, which is on the presumption of liberty. As we heard, a presumption of liberty is already something that judges would consider almost automatically as a matter of instinct. Of course, the drafting of the amendment could be tweaked but we are only at Committee stage. However, subject to reading Hansard and the Minister’s confirmation that the Government will consider the points before the next stage—I know he made no commitment and I would expect no less of him than that he would consider what has been said—I think that a presumption of liberty is so important that is should be in statute. Guidance can be changed. I would like to see the matter put absolutely beyond doubt. I appreciate that the amendment might have elephant traps in it—amateur amendments sometimes do. Of course, at this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
Clause 5 amends Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 to include persons who are “liable to be detained” as being persons in respect of whom steps can be taken for the purposes of identification, such as fingerprinting and photographing. We put down this question on whether the clause should stand part and Amendments 22 and 25 to raise some questions about how this clause will be implemented and why it is considered necessary, not because we are opposed to the use of biometric information or its provision by various people.
It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate what individuals, circumstances or situations would be covered by the words “liable to be detained” that are not currently covered by the existing legislation, including the Immigration Act 1971. It is perfectly reasonable to verify the identity of someone who is detained. The law provides for that to enable us to address the issue of, for example, dealing with people suspected of being in this country illegally. In that situation, the immigration officer can, for example, check the person’s fingerprints either with that person’s consent or following their arrest.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, when I looked at Clause 5—“detained” or “liable to be detained”—the question that arose in my mind was, “How do you know someone’s liable to be detained unless all the processes including any appeal rights have actually been pursued?”. I have two amendments in this group. Amendment 23 would leave out the second part of the new subsection (1A) introduced by Clause 8. The provision in Clause 8 is that biometric information means,
“information about external characteristics (including in particular … )”.
Paragraph (b) then refers to,
“any other information about a person’s physical characteristics”.
Well, what could those be if they are not the external physical characteristics in subsection (1A)(a)? I cannot imagine that they are internal physical characteristics. I am quite confused about what subsection (1A)(b) might mean when read with subsection (1A)(a). That is quite apart from the fact that I have a rather natural and automatic dislike for not spelling out on the face of the Bill anything that could be spelled out.
Amendment 24 would take out of new Section 8(3)(c) introduced by Clause 10 the reference to “injury”. We are told in subsection (3) that the regulations may include provision to be used for certain purposes, of which paragraph (c) is,
“in connection with identifying persons who have died, or are suffering from illness or injury”.
I assume, and I hope the Minister can confirm this, that the reference to death or illness is because of public health considerations. Why then is it necessary to refer to injury? I would be interested to know what purpose this is to serve.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, Clause 5 amends paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 to include persons who are liable to be detained. This will allow immigration officers to check the fingerprints of persons they suspect to be illegal immigrants where there is a question about their identity. The existing power allows for fingerprints to be taken only from persons who have been detained under immigration powers.
The ability to establish an identity is an essential requirement for immigration officers when undertaking immigration enforcement operations. Unless identity is established it is not possible to remove or deport illegal immigrants. At present, where immigration officers encounter people whom they suspect to be illegal immigrants and have doubts about their identity, they can check the person’s fingerprints only with their consent or following the person’s arrest. In some instances this can lead to unnecessary arrests or result in illegal immigrants not being detected. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, surely the Committee does not want innocent people going about their lawful business to be arrested. Secondly, if the suspect does not appear to understand English, how can they give informed consent to have their fingerprints taken?
This power is intended to reflect the conditions under which the police operate. Prior to the changes made to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in 2005, the police also needed consent to check fingerprints where a person had not been arrested. The amendment has enabled the police to make fingerprint checks without the need to arrest individuals who are suspected of committing a criminal offence and whose identity might otherwise not be readily ascertained or verified.
This clause will bring immigration officers’ administrative enforcement powers more into line with police powers. The power to check fingerprints will be limited to the purpose of verifying identity as part of an immigration enforcement investigation. The fingerprints will not be retained but rather immediately electronically checked against the immigration biometric database. If there is an existing record, this will confirm the person’s identity and potentially assist the immigration officer to ascertain the person’s immigration status. This will help avoid unnecessary arrests, allowing those legitimately in the UK to go about their business, while quickly identifying illegal immigrants.
I want to assure noble Lords that this power does not mean that immigration officers will be able to stop anyone they encounter. The person required to provide fingerprints for checking must be liable to detention under the immigration Acts. In practice this means that the immigration officer must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they might be liable for removal from the UK. There will not be any blanket testing of people just because they look foreign. I hope that answers the question from my noble friend Baroness Hamwee about the term “liable to detention”. As I understand it, it is not a new term.
Clause 6 is intended to improve the levels of assurance about persons naturalising or registering as British citizens and to ensure that the identity of British citizens who apply for their first UK passport can be properly identified. Amendment 22 would weaken these proposals.
The power is intended to protect new British citizens from having their identity stolen by impostors by enabling a photograph submitted as part of a passport application to be checked against the new citizen’s record. If we destroy new citizens’ photographs before they obtain a passport, HM Passport Office would be less capable of confirming their identity. It would also expose HM Passport Office to fraudulent applications for British passports.
As observed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, over 90% of new British citizens make a passport application within one year, so very few new citizens will have their photograph retained for more than a year. I accept that this will result in a small minority of new British citizens who decide against applying for a British passport having their photograph retained for a longer period as a consequence of these provisions. However, retaining the photograph will be useful to them in protecting their identities. In particular, new British citizens who retain their other nationalities may opt to have a certificate of entitlement affixed to their non-British passport instead of obtaining a British passport.
This document is a right of abode vignette—passport sticker—that can be issued to, in addition to British citizens, certain other categories of Commonwealth citizens who have a right of abode if they have not ceased to be Commonwealth citizens. It contains a photograph of the holder, which needs to be checked against the photographs that the person may have previously submitted as part of an immigration or nationality application. Holders of valid certificates of entitlement are not allowed to hold a British passport at the same time.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, with regard to Amendment 23, the Minister is of course right that there is a reference further on in the new subsection that refers back to what I was seeking to take out, so my amendment is not complete. However, by mentioning that, he has drawn my attention to something else that I would like to pursue. New subsection (1B) says that an order under paragraph (b), which is about other information subject to an order by the Secretary of State,
“may specify only information that can be obtained or recorded by … external examination”.
That raises the question of whether only external examination can be used for new subsection (1A)(a), concerning,
“information about a person’s external physical characteristics”.
Perhaps he can confirm that there can be only an external examination to obtain information about the first limb in (1A).
The Minister talked about new technology, which I assume comes within the word “information”. My concern was to understand what physical characteristics there might be that were not included in (1A)(a). I accept that technology will advance, but it is what the technology is being used to identify and gain information on that concerns me. This may sound tedious but it is actually quite important. I do not know whether he is able to take the matter any further tonight; if not, I would be glad to pursue it after this stage.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I could add one or two comments. I thank the Minister for his reply and for the amount of information contained in it. I think that I recall him saying that “liable to be detained” was not a new phrase, but I am not sure how extensively it has been used before in immigration law.
I listened carefully to what he had to say about the situation of those whom immigration officers would not want to arrest. I will read his response carefully in Hansard, but at the moment I am not entirely clear what happens when someone whom they do not want to arrest declines to enable their fingerprints to be checked. I am not sure whether they will just be allowed to go or if in fact they will be arrested, which raises the question of why the existing powers are not adequate and why this new terminology is needed. As I say, I will read very carefully what he had to say.
Finally, I asked how many cases there have been in the past 12 months of people who would have had their fingerprints taken and checked if the “liable to be detained” provision in the Bill had been in force who could not have their fingerprints taken under the current wording in the Immigration Act 1971. I was not particularly expecting the Minister to come up with an instant response, but since that calculation is presumably the justification, at least in part, for this change in legislation that we are considering, I hope he will be able to provide me with an answer to that question later on.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the main justification for Clause 5 is to avoid unnecessarily arresting people and to make it easier to carry out immigration checks. I described a situation where someone cannot speak English or pretends not to speak English. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what the definition of “liable to be detained” is and how many cases it will affect. If I have any information about how many cases, I will write to him. A person is liable to be detained if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that removal directions may be given—that is, that the person requires leave to enter or remain but does not have it.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked whether a person who refuses to give their prints can be arrested. They cannot be arrested solely for refusing to give fingerprints, as they can be taken only by consent. This may not give enough reasonable suspicion that a person may be an immigration offender.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the external examination. The whole point of these provisions is that the checks can be external examinations only.
Lord Rosser
Presumably immigration officers would not want to check a person’s fingerprints unless they had some suspicions in the first place or some doubts.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, they would not be able to check fingerprints unless they had some good reason to do so.
Lord Rosser
I thought the Minister said that you cannot arrest someone who refuses unless there is some suspicion. To do the check in the first place must mean that you have some suspicion and, therefore, if they refuse, you could arrest them.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, there would indeed be an element of suspicion if someone declined to give their fingerprints to be checked, but I suspect there would have to be other evidence as well. I will write to noble Lords to clarify these points.
Baroness Hamwee
Will the Minister include an explanation of the statutory basis on which new subsection (1A)(a) can be obtained by external examination only? I do not doubt what he says, but the way the provision is worded raises the question.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
“(d) P is registered in full time undergraduate or postgraduate study at a recognised higher education institution”
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 26 covers ground similar to that covered by an amendment much later in the proceedings, Amendment 49, which we will not be dealing with tonight. Amendment 26 is about appeals and seeks to remove from the scope of the Bill appeals by undergraduate or postgraduate students in full-time study at a recognised higher education institution.
Why am I moving this amendment? There is much common ground with the Government about the important role that the higher education sector plays in our economy and, above all, that our universities play in our economy. It is a massive benefit to this country. It accounted for £10.1 billion of invisible exports at the last time of asking, and that figure is rising and should continue to rise. It is also common ground with the Government and with those in the university sector—I declare an interest as I sit on the council of the University of Kent—that we want to see those student numbers increasing. Last July, the Government published a strategy for international students, and in it they foresaw a steady increase in the years ahead. They hoped for some 15% in the next few years.
There is also the less tangible aspect of the benefits to this country from postgraduate and undergraduate students, which is called “soft power”. When they have qualified, these students very frequently go back to their countries and retain very strong links with this country, often doing much business with our exporters, and are thus generally very positive. That is the good news.
The bad news is that the Government’s immigration policy is cumulatively hamstringing this vital invisible export industry. That is before the measures in the Bill, several of which are likely to be quite damaging, have taken effect. This cumulative effect is now under way, and if you ask me whether these concerns are well founded, the most recent figures produced by the Higher Education Statistics Agency in January 2014, which cover the last academic year for which there are figures—2012-13—are disturbing indeed. Those figures are before the cumulative effect that would come from this Bill because, of course, it is not yet in force.
I shall not go into too much detail on the figures, because there was a good deal of coverage of them at Second Reading, but some really stand out. The main one is that in the year 2012-13 overall numbers dropped for the first time since figures were produced in the early 1990s. They dropped by 1%. More seriously, perhaps, the figures for postgraduates—and postgraduates from countries outside the EU are extremely important for the future of our universities—dropped by 4%. Some of the figures for the countries of origin of large numbers of students coming to this country are really terrifying. The figure for India dropped by 49% in two years, and there are very substantial drops in the figures for those from Pakistan and other countries of the Indian subcontinent, Nigeria and so on. That is in a period when the figures for our main competitors—the United States and Australia—were going up, by 7% for the United States and 6.9% for Australia. The market is growing, we are losing market share, and that is not good news for this country.
In addition, I suggest that Ministers look at a recent study conducted by the National Union of Students, which it made available to those of us who are interested in this matter, and which was based on 3,000 students from outside the EU currently studying in this country. They were asked in January of this year about their reaction to certain matters. That, too, was not very comforting. The chilling effect that the Government’s immigration policies are having and are likely to have was very clear: 51% of those non-EU students found the UK Government’s attitude towards them “unwelcoming”. Has the Minister studied this survey by the National Union of Students? These people have no particular interest in the matter, because they are here already. However, they said in much larger numbers than that 51% that if they had been asked to undertake some of the burdens in the Bill, they probably would not have come; they would have gone somewhere else.
The question is: why not carve students out of the Bill? There is no requirement for the Government to include students in the Bill for public policy purposes. I accept that the Government have to make a return on economic migration to the UN, which has to include students as well as those who are more properly regarded as economic migrants. However, there is no need whatever for the Government to apply their immigration policy, these new measures, to students because they are economic migrants; of course, they are really not. These people bring to this country very large resources, to which I have already referred: £10.1 billion net in the course of the most recent year. They bring jobs to this country because they are creating employment in our universities. The study by the University of Sheffield, of which I am sure Ministers are well aware, shows just how much of a contribution they make to the economies of many of our university cities and towns.
Why are the Government not therefore prepared to listen to the views of four or five—I cannot remember the exact number now; it goes up all the time—Select Committees which have all said, “Please do not treat students, for public policy purposes, as economic migrants, because you are damaging a resource vital to this country”? I hope that the Government will reflect further on this and will see the advantages to them and to the whole country of simply removing them from the Bill. I hope we will then all be able to work together, which is what universities want to do. Those of us who work for universities want to see a buoyant, increasing number of students, undergraduates and postgraduates in full-time education, coming to this country and bringing huge benefits to us.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I speak in particular to Amendment 27. At Second Reading, the Minister included in his list of myths surrounding the Bill that it undermines access to justice. The Joint Committee therefore looked again at this question. As the Minister may be aware, we published a second scrutiny report today. We write:
“We have considered carefully the Government’s argument that the right of effective access to a court or tribunal in immigration and asylum cases will be preserved by a combination of the continued availability of full appeals in cases concerning fundamental rights, the new system of administrative review, and the availability of judicial review, and its argument that the practical effectiveness of judicial review will not be affected by the proposed reforms to legal aid and judicial review itself. We do not share the Government’s confidence”.
We go on to say:
“We have already reported our concerns about the implications of the proposed residence test on effective access to justice. We have also inquired into the Government’s proposed reforms to judicial review and we will be reporting our conclusions in due course. For present purposes it is sufficient to say that, while we accept that it is a perfectly legitimate objective for the Government to seek to reduce the risk of unmeritorious claims being brought, we do have serious concerns about the effect of some of the Government’s proposed judicial review reforms on the practical ability to bring meritorious challenges to decisions, including in the immigration and asylum context … We also draw to Parliament’s attention the paradoxical fact that after years of seeking to reduce the number of immigration and asylum judicial review cases that have been causing backlogs in the High Court, including by transferring such cases from the High Court’s jurisdiction to the Upper Tribunal, the Government is now seeking to justify a significant reduction in appeal rights by reference to the continued availability of judicial review … In light of our concerns, we recommend that the removal of appeal rights for which the Bill provides should not be brought into force until Parliament is satisfied that the quality of first instance decision-making has improved sufficiently to remove the risk that meritorious appeals will be prevented from being brought”.
In other words, we express the spirit of Amendment 27.
Going beyond that, and speaking in a personal capacity, I also support my noble friends in their opposition to the question that Clause 11 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I speak to our Amendments 27 to 29, and to the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. We have heard examples from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lady Lister of why we consider this clause one of the most controversial in the Bill.
The Government have made it clear that the clause reduces the number of immigration decisions that can be appealed from the current 17 to just four. Only three types of decision will remain appealable: a decision to refuse a claim of asylum or humanitarian protection; a decision to refuse a human rights claim; or a decision to revoke asylum or humanitarian protection. A decision by the Home Office to refuse an application which does not involve one of these claims but is made, for example, on erroneous grounds or without reference to highly relevant information could not be challenged before a tribunal. Instead, the Government’s plans are that an administrative review system be set up to, according the Government’s fact sheet on the clause,
“provide a proportionate and less costly mechanism for resolving case working errors”.
We can all sign up to a process that gives timely, accurate decisions with a swift process to address any errors. However, taken in context, that is not what this clause does. We have therefore tabled a number of amendments, and have given notice of our opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill. Often, clause stand part debates are used as a kind of probing amendment, a technical way of ensuring discussion on the principle of the clause or an attempt to tease out the detail and address questions. We will be doing that with this clause. However, I also say to your Lordships’ Committee that removing the clause entirely would be our preference given the current position. Failing that, our Amendment 27 would ensure that appeal rights could not be abolished until the quality of Home Office decision-making for managed migration is deemed by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and the Secretary of State to be efficient, effective and fair. That would require that the provision be introduced by order subject to affirmative procedure; that is also the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
We have also tabled Amendments 28 and 29 to introduce two new clauses. Amendment 28 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an impact assessment before being able to commence the clause. The issue of students, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, would be relevant to Amendment 28. Amendment 29 would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the number of people successfully deported within a calendar year of a decision under Clauses 11 to 14.
We have tabled those amendments because of deep concerns about the clause. Our country has one of the most highly respected judicial systems in the world, and the right to appeal is a fundamental principle of British law. There can be few decisions more important, or which have a greater impact on an individual or community, than who is able to live here. These are decisions of life and livelihood which affect families, communities and, potentially, businesses and employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has highlighted the situation with students. Other noble Lords are concerned about the position of families and children. However, we are looking at the wider concerns and principles raised by the Bill. The evidence, and the impact on businesses and the economy, make it very important that we get these decisions right. It is right that such a decision should be challengeable and that recourse should be available.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
My Lords, I wish to support the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, by recalling two anecdotes. He very forcefully and persuasively deployed the arguments about students from abroad, external to the European Union, coming to this country. One anecdote is about when I visited Tanzania with the late George Thomson and met Julius Nyerere. He had studied in a university in Britain and had translated Shakespeare’s plays into Swahili. The ties with Tanzania were greatly fostered by that personal encounter at a particularly difficult time when we faced apartheid in South Africa.
The second anecdote relates to a visit I paid to Hong Kong some years later when I met the director of development and housing, who had also been to a British university. When I inquired about who were the construction engineers developing various important developments in Hong Kong, virtually every single one of them was British. I think that reflects the truth of the general principle that we should encourage people from overseas to come to this country as students not only because of the money they pump into our education system, but also because of the long-standing ties that they foster when they go back to their own countries.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I support the first amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for the following reasons. Each Bill introduced into Parliament has an impact assessment. I have considered the methodology of the impact assessment for this Bill. It refers to costs and benefits, but I think there is a fallacy built into the methodology. The section on employment and monetised benefits states:
“There may be additional employment opportunities for UK residents”.
This must be based on an extraordinarily narrow focus, even if it is not economic sense, to say that employment opportunities will be opened up for UK residents. It sounds like a bit of UKIP propaganda to me; I cannot see how the rationale for it works.
Why is this important? It is important because it is a long way from the sort of impact assessment to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, have alluded. If, for example, we were to see a catastrophic fall in the subcontinent, are we seriously suggesting that the impact assessment on UK plc national income over the next generation would be zero? Of course it would not be zero; it would be negative. It is unacceptable that the impact assessment can be framed as narrowly as this.
In this regard, I ask the Minister to do two things. One is to revisit the impact assessment and to at least have a go at the wider context. The analogy that crosses my mind is that 10 or 15 years ago we could have said that we did not need to spend any money on Heathrow Airport because aeroplanes could land there and if there were a few more in the next year that would be fine, failing to see that our market share in Europe, compared with Charles de Gaulle, Frankfurt and Schiphol, would now be in a state of crisis, unable to serve all the places in China, for example, that can be served by these other airports.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to do a survey, and to put it in the Library, of the situation in other EU countries. We are talking about a distinct group, non-EU students coming into the EU, and although we control our own borders, at least to some extent—obviously not with the EU—we are not covered by a common external immigration policy. I am not suggesting that we should be. I am suggesting that we do a benchmark study. Australia, the United States and possibly Canada are the only countries that have been mentioned so far: the “white Commonwealth”, as it was once called. However, it is important to know what the practice is on this question of students in the other EU countries. Do they have to deal with the fearful rigmarole that we are confronted with here? Is the damage to Britain’s reputation part of the cost-benefit analysis? Of course it is not. I have great sympathy for the civil servants trying to do these cost-benefit analyses in so many fields nowadays. With HS2, can you actually look at the cluster effect on Manchester and Leeds and so on in the north of England? Possibly not, because it is very hard to do. It is very hard to quantify the cost benefits for that, and civil servants would get no extra brownie points for introducing, alongside key monetised benefits, things where it is difficult to monetise their value.
In conclusion, will the Minister agree with me, and with the spirit of what has been said by many noble Lords, that one cannot look at an impact assessment in the narrow terms on this rather thin piece of paper that I have here, which it is probably obligatory on Whitehall to use? Will he agree to look into the two matters that I have specifically asked about? This involves our world market share in so many areas, and that concerns the future of our country. Some might say that this is missing the point and that the point is to reduce the number of overseas students. I ask the Minister if it is outrageous to suggest that the policy is to reduce the number of overseas students, the rationale being that statistically they pose more potential danger to the country. We must spell this out. Before Report, there is scope for these matters to be teased out a lot more than they have been so far.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have Amendment 80 in this group. I was prompted to table it following the discussions to which I have been party about the importance of students to this country.
While entirely agreeing with the thrust of what has been said so far, I have concerns about Amendment 26. It would have the effect of excluding—or including—a particular group that would retain a right of appeal. The new Section 82(1) would allow appeals by individuals in certain circumstances, but the noble Lord’s amendment would allow all those to whom he has referred—essentially all students—to retain the right of appeal. Students and universities are an obvious, vocal and important cohort. They have a voice that others affected by Clause 11 do not have. There will be individuals who are substantially affected as individuals, over a range of circumstances and issues. I would be concerned about picking out a single group for whom to retain a right, without considering carefully what that would say to all those other people who will be affected by this clause. There may also be practicalities which I shall not go into.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that many of our committees have said: “Please treat students not as economic migrants”. I do not doubt what he said but wonder whether we are being asked not to treat them as economic migrants or not to regard them as economic migrants. They may have slightly different meanings. However, I am absolutely convinced of the importance of the international links to which my noble friend Lord Maclennan referred. I am concerned about all the reputational issues for the UK that would flow from perceptions—we may be told that they are only perceptions but they are important—if we were thought not simply to accept students but to welcome them and seek for them to come here.
I am also concerned about what seems to be a lack of good marketing. We are told by the Government that students are welcome, but there is a problem in terms of promotion. Therefore, given that so much of the debate is actually about the number of immigrants and including students in total immigration figures, it would be right to pursue the issue regarding the number of students. We should seek not just to disaggregate the numbers, because I understand that that is done at the moment. However, that issue gets no coverage. We should be taking positive steps to make sure that it is understood how the numbers break down and that we do not prejudice ourselves by including student numbers in the total numbers and then finding that for whatever political reasons there is a target for reducing the total numbers, and the students get swept up in them.
I appreciate that there is the UN obligation and that the numbers are dealt with by the ONS and it is, in a sense, not up to the Government to publish separate figures. I know that those figures are there but they take a little seeking out and certainly do not get the promotion and exposure that they would if we were to have a debate based properly on numbers, rather than a debate that is based to a large extent on prejudices.
My Amendment 80, to which my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones, Lady Brinton and Lady Benjamin have put their names, would provide for an annual report by the Secretary of State on study-related immigration. I am sure that the amendment, which very much has amateur drafting, is riddled with technical flaws but its thrust is that we should be able to see annually,
“the number of applications to enter the United Kingdom on student visas”,
the number of applicants who actually come in on those visas, the number rejected, and an estimate of the number of people who have held a student visa who have left. We will, of course, be considering the issue of embarkation checks at the end of the Bill but one of the big holes in all the consideration of these issues is that we do not know who has gone. We also need comparative figures for other managed migration. We need this information in order to thoroughly understand what is going on. The lack of understanding is feeding a position that is entirely unhelpful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke to amendments regarding appeals and mentioned the proposal for an administrative review. I have an amendment on administrative reviews but it is not in this group and we will come to it on Wednesday.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said and I am delighted that my name should be attached to his amendment. I shall not therefore repeat his powerful arguments but should like to add just one further thought.
As everyone in this House knows, the United Kingdom is second only to the United States in terms of the number of universities that it has in the top group of the world’s universities, not just in absolute terms but in all kinds of important subject areas such as engineering; figures last week showed that Cambridge, Imperial College and Oxford were still in the very top group. That was as much as the rest of Europe put together was able to provide.
There are many reasons why British universities are in the top group of world universities but one is that there is a free market in talent that enables them to attract it from all over the world, not only in the students but in the teaching staff. To some extent, there is a chicken and egg factor here. They are great universities partly because they can attract talent from all over the world, and because they can attract that talent they remain very good universities.
There is a similarity between the university world and financial markets. Neither of them is purely national. Both are totally international with seamless connections across the world. Therefore, if you try to turn us into an island and cut us off from this stream of talent that is crossing the world, you will do great damage to British universities. It will not show up in the short term, as the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, just pointed out. These things take a long time to show through. But it will very seriously damage over the long term the ability of the greatest British universities to remain in the top group—and not only them. For 15 years, I was chancellor of the University of Bath, a university that was founded less than 50 years ago. This has nothing to do with me because the outstanding vice-chancellors that it has had deserve the credit, but in the past 20 years the University of Bath has moved from obscurity not only into the top group in the United Kingdom but now into a number of world league tables as well. That is because it has both a student body and a faculty that are drawn from all over the world. In fact the previous vice-chancellor was American. It has had people from the Far East, North America, South America and all kinds of places.
I beg Ministers to consider the fact that clauses such as this one that we are seeking to amend have a deleterious effect on the ability of British universities to perform adequately on the world stage. We do not have so many institutions, so many industries and so many spheres of our national life that are indubitably regarded as absolutely among the best in the world. Universities are one and it would be extraordinary to kick them in the shins.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, just said and what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said earlier. My background is that I was for 17 years chancellor of the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. Our experience has been that we are operating in a global market not only for teachers but for students—those coming to the university and those going out from the university to other countries to take on part-time study or study together with employment experience.
There are a number of aspects that I might very quickly mention one after the other. The first is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made about the cumulative effect of policies that have been building up over the years. One of the most injurious in our experience has been the inability of foreign students to stay on after they have completed their degree courses. I know that there is strong feeling in government that we have a policy about people who stay on who should not do so. These are people who in the previous system were able to remain here for a given period. They used that time to gain work experience in some of our leading companies. Together with their academic work, they took that back to their own countries, developed their own expertise and thereby maintained a continuing link not only with the universities but with the companies with which they worked. That has gone. We are not talking about that in this Bill, but it is against that background that this has become a much more serious issue. The noble Baroness made the same point. We have reached a point where we are losing contact and the competitive edge that we must maintain if our universities are to remain as competitive as they are in the world.
The second point is about revenue, which the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, made. Certainly, our experience when we were getting students from India and China was that they were paying substantial sums to come to the university, and we are losing that. I am told that there has been a 25% fall in students from these countries coming to Strathclyde for postgraduate degrees. That is a drop in numbers that is difficult to make up for in the market in which we work.
The other aspect is the exchange process whereby our students go away in the course of their studies for a year out. Because we are driving away international students from elsewhere, it is more difficult for us to get places for our students to go to.
The final point is that one of the essences of university is the ability of students to mix with each other, gain experience from what other people have done and make friends across the faculties and across the nations throughout the world. The opportunities for doing that will be diminished if we do not sustain our effort of attracting students from other countries from outside the EU who have so much to contribute. Therefore, I warmly endorse the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
I should add, in response to a point made by the noble Baroness, that I believe it is a very carefully crafted amendment because it is seeking to direct attention to a very particular category. Those are the categories described very precisely in the amendment, which is the point that I and, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, have addressed. It is a very particular category. It does not include language schools and all the other fringe elements, which might give rise to abuse. These are people who would be here for very good reasons, carefully monitored, and would take enormous benefits back to their own country if they were allowed to continue to come here.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, if I may, I will just add a brief comment on precisely that amendment. Some years ago I spent time in Malaysia and found myself meeting a number of barristers, all of whom had trained in this country. They spoke of how, when they had particular legal problems or needed advice, they would immediately turn to the people they had studied with back in this country. However, they were lamenting the fact that in recent years the next generation were all being trained in Australia and America and, of course, the place that they immediately contacted when they wanted help was their friends in those countries. They thought it was the most extraordinarily short-sighted approach compared with the way things had formerly been done.
I will add one other thing. Just three or four weeks ago, I paid a visit to one of the universities in my diocese, the University of Bedfordshire, and I met Bill Rammell, who had recently come there as the vice-chancellor. Immediately when we got talking, he lamented the very serious problem they have now of finding perfectly good students who want to come but are simply already unable to come. He was saying that this is something that is materially affecting Bedfordshire as one of our dynamic, thriving universities, which wants to be right at the forefront of forming, developing and, indeed, celebrating an international academic community, but it is finding that already it is difficult. Therefore, I want to add my support for the amendment.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 80, to which I have put my name, as I believe we need to find a sensible way forward to deal with the international student figures. International students make up less than 1% of the UK population, yet their spending power supports £80 billion-worth of UK economic output. International students support over 830,000 UK jobs across the country, including in Wales and Scotland. Interestingly, they are the most heavily regulated and monitored and are subject to strict visa controls. Yet there are proposed processes being considered here in this House that will deter many potential international students from choosing the UK as the place to study. This worries me greatly, as I speak as chancellor of the University of Exeter—I declare an interest.
This is why I support Amendment 80, which my noble friend Baroness Hamwee has spoken so eloquently on. I believe this is a common-sense way forward that deals with this important issue, and highlights international student numbers in a coherent and sensible way to show them that they are not perceived as the enemy and that they are wanted and welcome. It will ensure that the Government will know that, if there are any concerns detrimental to our country, they will know exactly where the problems are if there are any. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will give careful consideration to Amendment 80. I look forward to his reply and will accept nothing less than a compromise.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, the hour is late and there is much to say, but I will be brief in my remarks. Let me begin by declaring an interest as a member of the court of the University of Hertfordshire, which is very like what the right reverend Prelate had to say about the University of Bedfordshire—a very young, growing but exciting and expanding university in a part of the world which, rather surprisingly, has not got as many universities as exist around Oxford and Cambridge and London.
Let me be quick and say the following. I would like first to add one other distinguished name to the list given by my noble friend Lord Maclennan. It is a name worth thinking about for a moment, and it is of course that of the new President of Iran. He holds a postgraduate degree from Glasgow Caledonian University, and one has to ask oneself whether his much more enlightened view of global relationships has nothing whatever to do with the fact that he is one of the very few senior figures in Iranian society who has spent substantial time outside his own country, speaks good English and is interested in what is happening elsewhere. That is the kind of benefit, one which cannot be listed economically, that a country like ours gets from the very wide spread of its students from all over the world who, over the last generation, have attended universities in this country. Out of that has grown an abiding affection both for their university and for the country in which it happens to be located.
Let us be honest: there is a profound division of opinion within the Government on this issue. We all know that the department for business enthusiastically supports the idea of a substantially greater expansion of British universities. That department includes some able Ministers with considerable knowledge of higher education, and it knows one important thing. The important thing that it knows is that you can grow out of a university relationship a whole range of relationships with other businesses, public services and so forth across the front. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, pointed to the effect of this kind of relationship on global attitudes. It allows us to extend our acquaintances and friendships all over the world.
I shall put this very particularly because the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said something less dramatic than I am about to say. He pointed out quite rightly that the National Union of Students study, based on a careful poll conducted at the end of last year of more than 3,000 students in this country, is the best figure that he could get; it is a figure showing what undergraduates think. Some 51% of undergraduates have said that they think that this country is not welcoming to overseas students. The more drastic figure—more drastic for the reasons given by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Benjamin—shows that 66% of postgraduate students, people who have spent some time studying here, take the view that this country is unwelcoming to overseas students. These are the very men and women to whom the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, was referring when he talked about relationships with scientific, medical and cultural groups in this country. They have a valuable contribution to make, but increasingly they are being somewhat frozen out.
One of the worst examples of this is the playing around with visas, which means that students suddenly find themselves without a visa a matter of months before they are due to start their course, and no one repays them for the work they have done to get that visa in the first place. British visas are among the most expensive to be found in any country offering higher education in the whole of Europe. Our visa expenses are something like three or four times higher than those of our major competitors. Now we are going to add to that cost health surcharges, decisions about tenancies and a whole range of things, all of which are off-putting and not welcoming. I agree with my noble friend Lady Hamwee that this country has to make a great effort to retain this huge asset value in one of the few areas in which we still lead the world. It is to my mind almost totally irrational to make it harder and harder for our most effective industry, that of higher education, to expand, grow, root itself and be there for the distant future.
The reason for all this is that we have become so obsessed with immigration numbers that we can no longer see the larger picture. The great bulk of students, over 95%, who come here to study go back to their own countries, having fostered friendships and relationships with us. I shall give only one example before I stop. In this country we suffer considerably from a long increase in waiting times for people getting into, for example, A&E to look after accidents and injuries that they have. We used to have a substantial number of junior doctors serving in A&E, particularly those who came from countries like India, but elsewhere as well, who gained great knowledge of medicine and of our hospitals and made a huge contribution to a National Health Service that ran smoothly. Increasingly, those numbers are no longer there. In two years’ time we shall see A&E waits rise, and we shall ask, “How did this come to happen?”. The answer is right here and now. It comes to happen if we turn off the young medics who would like to come here, who would like to learn about how we work and about how our health service works and then go back to their own countries and spread that knowledge more widely.
So I end simply by saying that we have a profound schizophrenia in this country on this issue. I do not understand why it is not clearly seen to be of such advantage to us, to our own people and to those who come. We do not recognise that we should have the strength to face up to looking again at this extraordinary conflict that we look at all the time between different departments, different people and different individual political attitudes. We should look at it and say to ourselves that this is something that we do very well, something for which we have been admired, something which benefits the world and benefits us, and decide to get on with it and make our universities the core of one of our most rapidly rising and highest reputation industries.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I shall briefly add my support to both Amendment 26 and my noble friend’s Amendment 80. The fact is that overseas students are temporary migrants. They should be both treated and reported differently. These two amendments reflect that approach.
This debate is very timely. Last week, the net migration figures were published and none of the media coverage disaggregated the figures. I do not know what the Government’s original press release stated, but it seems that by publishing in that form they are simply creating a rod for their own back. Amendment 80 at least is an attempt to make sure that for some purposes, the student visa figures are clearly and publicly disaggregated.
The obsession with the original pledge to reduce net migration to tens of thousands seems to me and to many others in the university sector to be totally counterproductive in terms of its impact on our ability to attract foreign students. I and many others made clear on Second Reading that we are in danger of an adverse impact both in economic terms and in terms of the soft power to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Maclennan referred. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the total number of international students coming to the UK fell for the first time last year.
The number of voices that we have heard over the past two years, not just in this House, has been legion in that respect. In 2012, 68 representatives of universities wrote to the Government urging that these figures should be disaggregated for public policy purposes. The Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee did likewise. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to the five chairmen of Select Committees. All the aforementioned are powerful voices recommending that for domestic policy purposes, overseas students should not be counted against the overall limit on net migration.
Contrary to that, the Government’s response to the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee’s report stated that they were following the same practice as the US, Canada and Australia, our main higher education competitors. That is simply not the case. Those countries do exclude students, treating them as temporary migrants for domestic policy development. It is high time that we did likewise—failing which we are going to find that we are in grave difficulties over our ability to attract these students in future.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, this has been an important and interesting debate. It is really about appeals, but I understand why many noble Lords have also used the opportunity to talk about student issues. It is an issue which was well canvassed during your Lordships’ debate at Second Reading. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has amendments—or at least an amendment—down later in the Bill, where I am sure there will be an opportunity again to debate these matters.
I will of course try to respond to a number of the points that were made but it might be useful to put this into context—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke to the clause stand part debate and to other amendments with proposed new clauses—and to look at some of the issues regarding students in that context. The key point is that we believe that the present appeals system is complex and costly. The purpose of Clause 11 is to reform and streamline the appeals system so that appeals can be brought only where decisions engaging the fundamental rights of asylum, human rights or EU free movement are made. The clause will also set up an administrative review system to provide a proportionate and less costly mechanism for resolving casework errors.
Clause 11 changes the decisions that give rise to an appeal, the grounds on which that appeal can be brought and the jurisdiction of the tribunal to consider them. As I said, it is intended to simplify an overly complex appeals system. That complexity provides the opportunity for multiple appeals and allows removal to be delayed by the lodging of an appeal as of right where there is no arguable error or where there is a simple casework error that can be corrected more quickly and effectively by administrative review. I will come on to the wider points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which I am sure we will debate fully. The Joint Committee on Human Rights accepted that there was a legitimate objective to reduce unmeritorious claims, although I accept that other issues arise with that.
Clause 11(2) reduces to four the number of decisions that can be appealed. We recognise the importance of an appeal to an independent tribunal where a case involves fundamental rights such as asylum and human rights, and the provision preserves an appeal right in these cases. A right of appeal is also preserved where the decision was to refuse a claim based on European Union rights. That appeal right is established by secondary legislation under Section 109 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and therefore does not form part of the Bill.
A right of appeal is not the most appropriate remedy for cases that do not involve fundamental rights. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned that our internal sampling showed that 60% of allowed appeals against decisions under the points-based system are allowed because of casework error, and asked when that sampling was done. It was a 2% sample between April and June 2013. An appeal is a costly and time-consuming way to correct a casework error but it is not the case, as I think the noble Baroness said, that we are trying to stop a challenge where there is a casework error. There will be an administrative review system, which is what we have been debating and what we believe is the most appropriate remedy in these cases.
Subsection (3) repeals Sections 83 and 83A of the 2002 Act, which provide for a right of appeal on asylum grounds where asylum was refused or revoked but leave was granted on other grounds. They are no longer necessary, as subsection (2) provides for a right of appeal directly against the refusal of, or revocation of, asylum in all cases. Subsection (4) sets out the grounds on which an appeal can be brought. Clause 11 simplifies what is currently a complex system so that the only grounds on which an appeal can be brought reflect the decision under challenge. Subsection (5) restores the Secretary of State’s position as primary decision-maker on asylum and human rights claims and prevents appellants from raising new issues for the first time on appeal. Under the current appeals system, the tribunal has jurisdiction to decide such issues even though the Secretary of State has not had the chance to consider them. For example, a student appealing against the refusal of an application to study in the UK can currently raise asylum or their Article 8 rights, disclosing for example that they now have a family in the UK, which they can do under the present system for the very first time on appeal.
Making this change restores the role of primary decision-maker to the Secretary of State by providing that the tribunal cannot consider any reason that a person has for wanting to stay in the UK that has not already been considered by the Secretary of State, unless the Secretary of State consents to the tribunal considering the new matter. This provision does not prevent a person introducing new evidence about matters that the Secretary of State has already had a chance to consider. The tribunal will continue to be able to make its decision on the basis of all facts relevant to the matters that are before it, as required by case law. Reforming appeal rights will create a better process. Immigration judges at the tribunal will no longer need to consider caseworking errors. Applicants will have those errors considered faster and more cheaply, and those types of case will be removed from the tribunal system, which will reduce overall expense.
That is the context in which we are looking at the issue of students, although I accept and acknowledge the much wider issues that have been raised in this debate. I agree with my noble friend Lady Hamwee and with others. In fairness, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said as he opened the debate and moved his amendment that there was much common ground between what he was arguing for and the Government’s position.
We agree on the importance of students to the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Maclennan gave illustrations of the soft-power benefit that can come from that. Overseas students contribute a great deal to our economy and to the reputation of our academic institutions internationally. There is no limit to the number of genuine overseas students who may come here to study. As the Government have repeatedly said, this country welcomes the brightest and best. It is important to stress that.
On the specifics of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Benjamin, who said that she accepts nothing but compromise, I hope that I can perhaps give her more than compromise. Most of the data sought by my noble friend’s amendment is already published. Data on visa applications, grants, and refusals of tier 4 general visas, and on other visa categories, and corresponding admissions data for those entering the UK, are published quarterly by the Home Office. These statistics also show the number of visa applications made by students sponsored by higher education institutions as distinct from other types of education provider. In addition, the Office for National Statistics publishes quarterly reports on international migration statistics that now include estimates of the number of former students emigrating from the United Kingdom. The Higher Education Statistics Agency is responsible for publishing detailed data about non-EU students in the higher education system.
It might be useful to inform the debate with some statistics. I think that it was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones mentioned it, too, that there had been a drop in the number of international students. To put it into some kind of perspective, in 2010-11 the number in the UK was 428,230; in 2012-13 it was 425,260, a drop of less than 3,000. Australia had a drop of 10,000 and France of 2,000. There were increases in the USA and Canada, but the drop in the UK was relatively small and much smaller than that in Australia. There was specific mention of Chinese students. Between 2010 and 2013, the number of Chinese students increased in the United Kingdom by 24.5%. Admittedly in the United States the figure was 49.5%, but the increase in Australia was only 1% and in France there was a drop of 4.4%. There is a good story to tell. We are still an attractive proposition for people wishing to come and study.
Lord Clement-Jones
Perhaps my noble and learned friend can tell us what the figures for Indian students are.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, disappointingly the figures for India have gone down and there may be some historical background to that. The figures have gone down from 39,000 to 22,000 over these three years. They also decreased in the United States from 103,000 to 96,000 and in Australia from 21,000 to 12,000. It is interesting that there were decreases in the UK, Australia and the United States, which suggests that there may have been other factors. As my noble friend Lord Taylor said, there had been a big increase at an earlier stage in students coming from India, but I will certainly look for more detail on that.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Does this not demonstrate the value of having some independent statistics on what you might call world market share? The figures for India, the United States, et cetera, have just demonstrated that you have to compare apples with apples on this and we are not necessarily doing that at the moment. It would be very useful, to inform the debate, if we had more data instead of anecdotal evidence on these matters.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The noble Lord is suggesting that these figures are anecdotal, but in respect of the countries I have just mentioned—the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom—they are genuine figures, as far as I am aware. There is no way that they are anecdotal. Those for the United Kingdom were produced by the Office for National Statistics.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I honestly think that we had better call the day on this selective quotation of statistics. Why cannot we all just use the Higher Education Statistics Agency’s figures for the most recent year? Just picking figures out or suggesting that two or three years before that there had been an enormous increase and so on will get nowhere. This is not a statistical matter. This is about a growing market in which we are losing market share.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I did not seek to dismiss this as a statistical matter. I sought to put it into some kind of context: that over the period we have been talking about the drop was less than 3,000, and other countries saw a drop as well. The important point, which I will repeat, is that this country welcomes the brightest and best and there is no limit on the number of overseas students who can come to study here.
My noble friend asked whether students who receive visas go on to use them. All genuine students who qualify will be issued with a visa for the United Kingdom but of course they may ultimately decide to study elsewhere. I know that it may be of interest to my noble friend how many students may go to the trouble of applying for a UK visa and then choose not to travel, but I regret that that information is not available to the Government. I am afraid we cannot meet all her requests but a substantial number of the things that she was seeking in her amendment are already there.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I accept that and I knew that much of what I was seeking was already published. My amendment tried simply to paint the whole story. I accept that some of the painting by numbers cannot be filled in.
A few minutes ago my noble and learned friend said that there is a good story to tell. My short point is: we need to tell it. It seems that we are not telling it and I would like to find a mechanism to get it told. I passed my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones a copy of the Home Office press release that I printed off on Friday. If I were a journalist it would not tempt me to write the good story.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My noble friend makes a valid point. We collectively need to think about how to tell a good story better.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked about students staying and working after their studies. While studying, university students can work for up to 20 hours a week in term time and full-time during holidays; they can also undertake work placements. They get four months at the end of their course to gain work experience and after that they can stay if they get a graduate job earning £20,300 or more or are on one of our other postgraduate study work schemes. We have also expanded the post-study work opportunities available. PhD students can stay for a year to gain work experience and those who have a business idea to develop can do so under our graduate enterprise scheme, which I believe is the first of its kind in the world.
In trying to address the issue, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has moved an amendment which seeks to add decisions relating to higher education students to the types of decision that can be the subject of an appeal to the tribunal, as set out in Clause 11. The Bill already provides that anyone, including students, can appeal against one of the decisions listed in Clause 11(2): the refusal of a protection claim, the refusal of a human rights claim or the revocation of protection status. The amendment does not change that because it neither adds a new decision type to the list of decisions that attract a right of appeal nor adds to the grounds of appeal that could be raised at appeal. When I was in the other place, I used to cringe a bit when Ministers used to say, “Your amendment is technically deficient” when an important point was being made. Technical flaws aside, we believe the amendment is unnecessary. It is true that a student may no longer appeal against the refusal of an application for further leave to remain in the UK as a student under the Immigration Rules. We are doing that because the appeals system is slow and expensive for those with a genuine concern and presents too many opportunities to frustrate removal for those who seek to break the rules.
The Bill replaces the right of appeal with the administrative review process, which will provide a swifter and cheaper remedy for the majority of those students who would have been successful on appeal. For students who want to move on with their studies, I believe that a quick remedy is better than a drawn out one and that a cheaper remedy is better than a costly one. That relates to the issues which have been raised in this debate in relation to appeals.
Amendment 27 would impose three conditions which must be met before the appeals provisions in Clause 11 come into force. The first is that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration must report on decision-making in entry clearance and managed migration. The second is that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that decision-making for entry clearance and managed migration is efficient, effective and fair. The third is that only once those two requirements have been met can an order for commencement of Clause 11 be laid before Parliament and approved by both Houses.
I understand the reservations that have been expressed about decision-making in immigration cases. They were expressed in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and by the noble Baroness today. However, these concerns must be seen from the perspective of the end-to-end immigration system. In 2012, 14,600 managed migration appeals were allowed by the tribunal. The total number of managed migration decisions taken in 2012 was 291,827. Only 5% of those decisions were overturned. Although our internal sampling indicated that 60% of the points-based system appeals that succeed do so because a case-working error has been made, this does not mean that the majority of decisions are affected by error—far from it. The great majority of applications are successful. Of decisions taken in the UK, only 10% were refused in 2012. Fifty-one per cent of those succeeded on appeal, of which 60%, as I referred to earlier, succeeded because an error was made. Looking at decisions as a whole, it is clear that only a small proportion is affected by the changes being made to the appeals system.
The Home Office has taken action to address historic problems with decision quality. I recognise that these concerns have been genuinely aired. It is why the old UK Border Agency was abolished and its functions brought back into the Home Office. That has made a real difference and work is continuing to improve decision quality. The chief inspector himself acknowledged that positive steps have been taken to improve the process by which decision-makers learn from appeals in his November 2012 report on tier 4 student visas, which in turn led to improvements in process and decision quality.
Administrative review will be a central part of the process to improve decision quality, as its function is to identify errors in decision-making. The administrative review process is being developed to incorporate an element of feedback to the original decision-maker. In this way, administrative review will support the ongoing work to improve decision quality. I can also confirm that those who do the review will not be the same as those who undertook the original decision.
The approach adopted overseas for feeding back administrative review outcomes to decision-makers and improving decision quality is recommended as the right approach by the chief inspector in his September 2013 report on tier 1 visas. In-country administrative review is modelled closely on the approach overseas.
Meeting the requirements that the amendments seek to impose before commencing Clause 11 will inevitably cause delay. That will mean that those migrants whose decisions are affected by case-working error will have to continue to challenge decisions by costly and time-consuming appeals rather than being able to take advantage of a swifter and cheaper administrative review process.
Amendment 28 also relates to the commencement of Clause 11. It would require an impact assessment to be laid before Parliament setting out the number of appeals that will be affected by the changes to appeal rights introduced in this Bill and the costs that these changes would cause the First-tier Tribunal to incur. However, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, an impact assessment has already been produced and was published prior to the introduction of the Bill. It contains the information that this amendment seeks to have laid before Parliament. Given the existence of the impact assessment, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendment.
Amendment 29 would require the Secretary of State to produce a review within 12 months of Royal Assent of the numbers of persons deported under Clauses 11 to 14. I rather suspect that the amendment is based on a misapprehension as deportations do not take place under these clauses but rather under Section 5 of the Immigration Act 1971. However, I assume from what was said that the aim is to question what difference the changes in the Bill will make to our ability to deport those whose presence is not conducive to the public good, including foreign national offenders.
The changes made in the Bill are not about large increases in the number of foreign criminals we deport but about the principle that Parliament is rightfully the body to set out the public interest in the importance of seeing foreign criminals deported and that the tribunal is the right body to weigh the strong public interest in deporting foreign criminals against the specific Article 8 rights of the criminal and their family. Success will be seen as these deportation cases progress through the Immigration Tribunal with outcomes that clearly show that the tribunal decision has had particular regard to Parliament’s legitimate view on the public interest. Case law will take some time to develop and settle once these provisions are commenced. It is not sensible to have a set period on the face of legislation for when a report must be presented when we may well at that point have only a very partial picture of the impact of the changes.
The statement of intent published in relation to the Bill also indicated that:
“Within a year of the administrative review process being established, the Home Secretary will ask the independent chief inspector to include a review of the administrative review process in his inspection plan”.
It is certainly my understanding that, off his own bat, the chief inspector can also take up any issue at any time. The Government have committed to asking the independent chief inspector to include a review of the administrative review process established under this clause, with that to be done within a year of the process being established. On the basis of these reassurances, particularly with regard to appeals, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment and that noble Lords will agree that Clause 11 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I will be very brief because the noble Lord, Lord Singh, and others who are involved in the next debate have been sitting with mounting irritation, I seem to think. He has been very patient and I will not say much.
The point I am making here is that the cumulative effect on students and post-graduates is damaging. The evidence is there and we would be foolish to ignore it. I hope that Ministers will, between now and Report, look carefully at the cumulative issue. That is important. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, suggested that the drafting of my amendment is somewhat short of perfect. I asked someone who shall remain nameless about that earlier today. He said, “Don’t worry, Ministers always say the drafting is imperfect but, if the House’s views are made known to them, somewhere before Third Reading they will get it right. They have lots of lawyers who can get it right”. I do not wish to continue further now other than to say that we will have to come back to this issue both in the debate on Amendment 49 and on Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Sikh Community
(10 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Singh of Wimbledon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further steps they will take to improve relations with the Sikh community arising from the publication of government documents regarding British involvement in planning the attack on the Golden Temple.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the debate is time-limited to 90 minutes. All Back-Bench contributions will be limited to 10 minutes each.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, the first week of June will mark the 30th anniversary of the Indian Government’s attack on the Golden Temple—the Vatican of the Sikhs. The attack was deliberately timed to coincide with the martyrdom anniversary of the temple’s founder Guru Arjan, when the huge complex would be full to overflowing with pilgrims. Tanks and armoured vehicles were used. On conservative estimates, well over 2,000 pilgrims were killed. Eye-witnesses told of how some who surrendered were tied up in their own turbans and shot. Other eye-witnesses outside the temple complex, including my own in-laws, described with horror how they saw groups of pilgrims being herded together and then dispatched with hand grenades. Many of the atrocities were reported in the British and world press. The President of India at the time, Zail Singh, a Sikh, who was the nominal head of India’s armed services, was not even consulted.
Every June Sikhs remember the huge loss of life and the mindless damage to the Golden Temple, the historic centre of the Sikh faith. The question arises: why did Indira Gandhi resort to such brute force against the Sikhs? The Indian government version, unquestioningly accepted by our Government—and I speak as a British Sikh—was that there were 17 wanted separatists “holed-up”—to use the Indian Government’s jargon—in the Golden Temple. They were a threat to a country of 1 billion people. The absurdity is obvious. In addition, this version does not explain why 40 other historic gurdwaras in Punjab were attacked at the same time. Sikh gurdwaras are open to all. Why were the so-called separatists not simply arrested by the hundreds of soldiers and police who daily entered the gurdwara for the traditional free food?
What Sikhs were demanding at the time was a fair share of Punjab’s river waters to irrigate their fields—and, more importantly, fair treatment for all India’s minorities against growing evidence of majority bigotry. Earlier in the same year hundreds of Muslims in Mumbai were massacred, with the mob carrying barriers proclaiming: “Majorities have their rights”.
The true reason for Mrs Gandhi’s vindictive attitude to Sikhs stemmed from her prison conviction for electoral fraud in the election of 1975 and her seizing power and imposing dictatorial rule. Her son Sanjay had married a Sikh and she turned to Sikhs for support. Sikhs, although less than 2% of the population, were at the forefront of the opposition to dictatorial rule, in which the poor—particularly Muslims—were forcibly sterilised and others dumped in the wilderness to make Delhi a tidier place for the Asian Games. Maneka Gandhi, Sanjay’s wife, true to Sikh democratic traditions, openly opposed the dictatorships.
Sikhs were never forgiven by Mrs Gandhi. When she returned to office, she cynically decided to play to majority religious bigotry, first against the Muslims and then even more vindictively against Sikhs. The June 1984 carnage in the Golden Temple far exceeded in numbers and barbarity the 1919 massacre led by General Dyer at the nearby Jallianwala Bagh. Even worse was to come.
The widespread killing of thousands of Sikhs following Mrs Gandhi’s assassination was blamed on spontaneous mob violence. All the evidence is that it was pre-planned for the anniversary of Guru Nanak’s birthday and was simply brought forward, with the government-controlled All India Radio constantly inciting the killers with the words “Khoon ka badla khoon”, meaning “Take blood for blood”. The army was confined to barracks for three full days to allow free rein to organised gangs carrying Sikh voter lists, armed with identical steel rods and an unusually plentiful supply of kerosene, to go around the capital in municipal buses beating and burning male Sikhs and gang-raping women and young girls. Prominent Hindus and Sikhs begged the new Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, to order troops to restore order. His chilling response was: “When a big tree falls, the ground is bound to shake”. The same scenes were enacted throughout the country. We know all about the disappearances and killings in General Pinochet’s Chile, but a WikiLeaks document carrying a signed report from the American embassy in India shows that more Sikhs were brutally murdered in just three days in 1984 than those killed in Pinochet’s 17-year rule.
I turn to our Government’s involvement, as revealed in documents that have now come to light. In their initial reaction, the present Government said that support for Mrs Gandhi was “minimal”. I beg them to think again in the light of the evidence of persecution of Sikhs that was freely known at the time. A Government committed to human rights must question the morality of “minimal” involvement in the persecution of minorities. The released documents praise Mrs Gandhi and cast aspersions on UK Sikhs, with not one word of concern over the murder of thousands of Sikhs.
I was not in the least surprised to read of SAS involvement; I wrote about it at the time in the summer 1984 issue of the Sikh Messenger. Nor was I surprised by evidence linking British support for Mrs Gandhi to a £5 billion arms contract and the need to “keep Mrs Gandhi happy”. In November 1984 I went to see a senior Cabinet Minister to seek government support to end the pogrom against Sikhs. I received the reply: “Indarjit, we know exactly what is going on but we’re walking on a tightrope; we’ve already lost one important contract”.
At the time I was a member of the UNA, where we discussed the killings. The director, Malcolm Harper, formally raised evidence-based concerns with the Government, asking them to support a UN inquiry into the killings. I made a presentation to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Human Rights, then chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The APPG decided to send two parliamentarians to investigate but the High Commission refused them visas. They appealed, saying that the visit would help to improve Hindu/Sikh relations. They were again refused.
Sikhs accept that today’s Government are in no way responsible for the mistakes of the past. However, they can and must help to heal wounds. I was in Westminster Abbey this morning and heard Archbishop Desmond Tutu quote the words:
“The time for the healing of the wounds has come”.
This is true for the wounds in the Sikh community, opened further by the new revelations.
I take this opportunity to thank many in the Hindu community who hid and sheltered Sikhs at the time of the killings. Others risked their lives carefully documenting the names of Congress Party leaders inciting mobs to kill. Sikhs owe them a great debt.
Two of the three main political parties in India have declared their support for an open inquiry. Even Rahul Gandhi, leader of the Congress Party, has admitted that some Congress officials were involved in the killings.
Speaking in the Indian Parliament in 2005 Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made the revealing comment:
“Twenty-one years have passed … and yet the feeling persists that somehow the truth has not come out”.
I urge the Government to add their support for an open, independent inquiry into the massacre or genocide of Sikhs in 1984 in the same way that they are backing a UN-led inquiry into the killing of Tamils in Sri Lanka. Against this, all offers of government assistance and offers to talk to Sikhs pale into an unnecessary distraction.
Eighty-three thousand Sikhs gave their lives supporting Britain in the two world wars. In comparison, giving public support for an open, UN inquiry is a small ask. Not to do so will give a clear message to Britain’s half a million Sikhs and others concerned with human rights that the UK Government are ambivalent and selective on issues of human rights. As director of the Network of Sikh Organisations, the oldest and largest grouping of Sikhs in the UK, and of the more recently formed Sikh Council UK, I offer my full and unconditional support to the Government to help end the 30-year nightmare suffered by Sikhs. We are confident that our Government will not let us down.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, for initiating this debate. I am close to the Sikh community, and I enjoy good relations with it. In fact, I am patron of two Sikh organisations. Sikhs have played a vital part in the life and history of the United Kingdom. The first Sikhs settled here 160 years ago, in 1854. Since that time, waves of Sikh migrants have come here and successfully integrated into British society. We owe them an immense debt of gratitude for fighting shoulder to shoulder with us in both World Wars. They also played a key role during the post-war expansion of the British economy. They filled many jobs when Britain was experiencing a labour shortage. There are now more than 500,000 Sikhs living in the United Kingdom. The British Sikh Report 2013 found that 95% of British Sikhs are proud to be born or living in the United Kingdom. They have been successful in every walk of life, including business, the professions, sport, academia and politics. Indeed, we are pleased to see a turbaned Sikh in your Lordships’ House today.
The Sikhs have a reputation for a strong work ethic and are second only to Jews in how financially productive they are as a religious group. At a reception last year to mark the harvest festival of Vaisakhi, the Prime Minister referred to Sikhs as a model community. Their values of hard work, loyalty and service to the community resonate strongly with me as a Muslim. The writings of a Muslim, Sheikh Farid, are in the Sikh holy book, which is called the Guru Granth Sahib.
We have a proud tradition in the UK of accepting and welcoming those from other cultures and of other religions. Nowhere has this been truer than with the Sikh community. The academic Dr Jasjit Singh has noted that British Sikhs are more comfortable wearing turbans than those in other countries. I find that more Sikhs are now wearing turbans, which they did not do before.
Although the Sikhs are well settled and happily integrated into the British community, there is unease within the community relating to Operation Blue Star. The events of June 1984 should never, and will never, be forgotten. The bloodshed and loss of life was, as the Foreign Secretary himself said, an utter tragedy. Estimates of the number of deaths range from the hundreds to the thousands, including innocent pilgrims caught in the crossfire. It will for ever be remembered as a horrific point in history, which caused long-lasting suffering and desecrated Sikhism’s holiest place of worship. It was therefore only right that it was revisited when the disclosed documents were published under the 30-year rule.
I acknowledge the swift and proactive way in which our Government dealt with these revelations. The Prime Minister immediately instructed the Cabinet Secretary to carry out an investigation, and I commend him for doing so. The Foreign Secretary has assured us that the investigation was both rigorous and thorough, and I have no reason to doubt this. The report was clear that the UK’s assistance was purely advisory in context and very limited in volume. When the actual military operation took place several months later, it diverged vastly from the original plans. We can therefore be confident that there was little, if any, connection between the British advice and the disastrous events that eventually unfolded. However, the resonance of this investigation with today’s Sikh community cannot be underestimated.
Continued suspicion and a desire for disclosure were inevitable. We must sympathise and deal with this appropriately. As the Prime Minister himself has said, the scars in the Sikh community still run deep. I know from my connection with the community that there are Sikhs asking for further action, namely the holding of an independent inquiry. Under the circumstances, it is of paramount importance that the Government are seen to be reaching out to, and working with, the Sikh community. The role of Sikhs in our country is generally well acknowledged and respected. David Cameron was the first British Prime Minister to visit the Golden Temple. I am aware that the leader of the Opposition is visiting this week, as have a number of other parliamentarians. I have personally visited the Golden Temple on three occasions, where I was received with a great deal of courtesy and respect. It must be borne in mind that the foundation stone of the Golden Temple was in fact laid by a Muslim, whose name was Mian Mir.
The Sikhs of course believe that no one should interfere with their wearing of turbans, and I am pleased that this Government ended the manual searches of turbans at airports. I know that this move was very welcome.
Our commitment to the Sikh community goes hand in hand with our commitment to uncovering the truth. I ask my noble friend the Minister if she can address the holding of an independent inquiry. As I have said, there are Sikhs in the United Kingdom who are asking for one to take place. In any event, all proceedings must be conducted with the utmost transparency and accountability at their heart.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for securing this debate. I was aware of the almost unanimous outcry of the Sikh community all over the world on the invasion of the Golden Temple by the Indian armed forces in 1984. This was a tragic event that resulted in the loss of thousands of innocent lives that could have been avoided.
The recent release of the report by the UK Government regarding the attack on the Sri Harmandir Sahib—Golden Temple—complex has raised more questions on the British involvement in this operation. I have had long discussions with Sikh leaders, including my friend and colleague, Parmjit Singh Gill, a former Member of the other House and one of only five Sikhs ever elected to it. He has worked robustly on the issue, both before the release of the report and after. I believe that, along with other Sikh leaders, he has met some of the most senior people in the Government, including the Cabinet Secretary, the Deputy Prime Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi.
On behalf of the British Sikh community, I wish to raise the following points. First, the Cabinet Secretary had reported that a key file on the provision of military advice to the Indian authorities on their plans for the attack in June 1984 was destroyed by the Ministry of Defence in November 2009. It remains unclear why such an important file was destroyed, and this lessens the credibility of the internal inquiry. Given the incredible importance of the 1984 attack to the Sikh faith, who took the decision to destroy the files and how was that decision taken? Was it taken at the ministerial level?
Secondly, Parliament appeared to have been misled at the time, following a Question on 30 July 1984 by the then MP for Slough, John Watts, who asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty’s Government had had with the Government of India about the incident—the attack on the Sri Harmandir Sahib, or Golden Temple. Ray Whitney, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary, replied:
“The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received petitions and numerous letters from the Sikh community in the UK about recent events in Punjab. As this is an internal Indian matter, we have not sought to discuss it with the Indian Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/7/84; col. 111W.]
Is this not contrary to the fact now established that they were in discussions and had provided military advice?
Thirdly, the media had reported in January 2014 that the then Prime Minister had ordered an inquiry to be carried out by the Cabinet Secretary which would cover the events of 1984. However, the inquiry covered only the period up to the start of the attack and no other events, which included the genocide of Sikhs that followed later that year. Clearly, the parameters of the review were too narrow, and it has been alleged that the terms of reference, which have not been published, changed during the inquiry. Would it not have made sense, if the inquiry was to carry the confidence of the Sikh community, to review and release all documentation covering the 1984 events, and over a much broader period of time, including the genocide of Sikhs in 1984? Despite the review and report, why have the details of the specific advice that was given not been revealed, nor the reason that the UK Government agreed to advise the Indian Government on how to attack the Sikhs’ holiest shrine?
Fourthly, when the Foreign Secretary delivered his Statement in the other place on 4 February 2014, Members raised questions suggesting that defence-related commercial interests had been advanced on the basis of providing advice to India and that measures had been taken by the UK Government to stop Sikhs in the UK exercising their democratic right to hold peaceful gatherings. Will the Minister comment on that?
Fifthly, what sanctions, if any, did the Government of India threaten the UK with in order to secure its silence when a genocide of Sikhs was taking place in India in 1984?
Finally, given the gravity of the decision by the UK Government of 30 years ago to provide military advice to the Indian authorities, which led to the series of events resulting in thousands of innocent Sikhs losing their lives, the very least that the estimated half a million Sikhs in the UK are entitled to from this Government is a full, independent, judge-led public inquiry so that the truth can finally come out. Will my noble friend promise a full, independent, judge-led public inquiry to establish the facts about the extent of British involvement in the Golden Temple invasion, to satisfy the British Sikh community?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Singh, has spoken eloquently of the terrible events that took place 30 years ago.
For some seven years in the 1990s, I was privileged to live in Walsall in the West Midlands, in a very multicultural area where I was then working and ministering. I not only counted among my friends a Sikh family living next door to me, but I also paid many visits to the local Guru Nanak temple and received wonderful hospitality there. Even then, some 10 years after the events of Operation Blue Star, Operation Sundown and Operation Woodrose, I was aware of how large these tragedies loomed not just in the imaginations but in the families of my neighbours.
These were not simply events that had taken place in a remote area; they were events that deeply affected people who lived around me. This was compounded because some of the worst atrocities took place at the holiest site for Sikhs. I am acutely aware of the pain, anguish and consternation that many of my Sikh friends feel. I want to identify with that. I am aware of just how difficult this is for them and of what they are feeling at the moment, as British citizens who have learnt that their own Government provided military advice not long before Operation Blue Star. I am not surprised that they are asking a lot of questions as they reflect on what happened.
During that period in the 1990s when I lived on the edge of the Black Country, I undertook some empirical research into the Sikh community as part of a degree that I was doing. It was fascinating. That research revealed that young Sikhs at that time in the West Midlands were a group with some of the highest levels of motivation and ambition compared with their peers. They were achieving excellent academic results in their exams. Not only were these young people making a real and tangible contribution to our society and our economy, but their families were making a huge contribution to their wider families back in their country of origin.
We know from other ethnic minority and minority religious groups in this country that sometimes events can be so significant—or, to use a rather overused word, so iconic—that they become catalysts for the radicalisation of a minority of their followers. Fortunately, there are few signs that this is happening in the Sikh community at the moment. However, there is a real danger that it could happen. As has already been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Singh, it is significant that the latest revelations have emerged in the 30th anniversary year, which adds great poignancy to our deliberations this evening.
I want to acknowledge the role that the Foreign Secretary has played in this matter: his clear commitment to transparency, the investigation that has taken place, his Statement and his commitment to the ongoing dialogue. It is important that that continues. Nevertheless, in this case there are reasons why we need some sort of wider inquiry into what went on. We need to ensure that if there are any other areas in which there was complicity, not least between our Government and the Indian Government, they should be acknowledged.
If we are going to claim the moral high ground of believing in open government, and if we want our Sikh brothers and sisters to know that they are fully part of our nation and their contribution is still valued, we need to take a further look at this issue and have some sort of wider inquiry. If we fail to do so and to do everything we can to address the serious concerns being expressed by all sections of the Sikh community—and they are widespread concerns—there is a real danger of long-term damage to our excellent and outstanding community relations that have been built up over such a long time. I hope that we can find some way forward to give deeper reassurance to our Sikh brothers and sisters.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for securing the debate and I want to state that I have very much enjoyed getting to know the noble Lord. He is a fellow officer in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Religious Freedom or Belief. He brings a significant voice from the Sikh community to our plural public debate. However, I have to say that when he began to tell me about the implications of the documents that have been released I was surprised that there could have been any connection. That may reflect the fact that I was not perhaps old enough to be conscious of the seriousness of the events at the time. However, I was surprised to learn that there had been this type of involvement.
In many ways, the title of this debate saddens me as the hundreds of thousands of British people in the Sikh community have been a good example of integration, with many successful businesses, and involvement in politics—with Paul Uppal MP in the House of Commons. The England cricket team is of course in need of another Monty Panesar to rescue our performance. Members of the Sikh community are also an exemplar of how reasonable accommodation of religious beliefs can be achieved in UK law. Section 11 of the Employment Act 1989 exempts turban-wearing Sikhs from any requirements to wear safety helmets on construction sites or to wear crash helmets. The Kirpan ceremonial knife is exempted under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 if carried for religious reasons.
However, the news coverage of this matter reveals that the relationship between the UK Government and the Sikh community is strained and reconciliation is needed. Despite the attempts by the first inquiry, it seems that we are not where we would like to be. Any relationship needs the parties to trust each other and that in this scenario depends on openness. After reading various reports, it is clear that the disclosure of the documents in January of this year was inadvertent. This was disclosure of information that the UK Government had decided would always remain secret. It is important that Her Majesty’s Government have been clear about this as it is a starting point for considering matters and restoring the relationship. In this scenario, it seems that the Ministry of Defence made a mistake in that it did not destroy all the files that it should have done and that at the 25-year point copies were left. Although the Cabinet Secretary’s report has pieced together the material from copies left in other government files, it has inevitably left a lingering and damaging suspicion that not all the documents needed were in fact available to the inquiry. It is partly to ensure that this does not happen again that Her Majesty’s Government have instituted an inquiry into the disclosure under the 30-year, or soon to be 20-year, rule. As a matter of practicality, at 25 years, should the files be destroyed? Would it not be sensible to wait until 30 years have passed to make sure that we are not in future inadvertently placed in this position again and that the files remain to be considered if needed. These documents were never intended to be disclosed as the decision was made that they would reveal information relating to intelligence or special forces. This situation would have meant that the destruction of all the files in 2009 was appropriate and all the copies in the other files should have been destroyed.
As I said, I am pleased that there is a commission looking into the annual release of papers and the process for withholding information. But as this was an inadvertent disclosure, we have a rare window into the decisions that are made on the basis of the military and special forces destruction of information. Will the commission have any remit to receive views from the public and interested bodies, particularly the Sikh community, on whether this kind of information should have been available for disclosure after 30 years? Is there not an advantage from such an inadvertent disclosure to have public debate on whether the line of non-disclosure is being drawn in the right place?
I note at this point that there has been no cry from the Government in terms of an Edward Snowden-type situation where we have all kinds of security implications because we know about what happened 30 years ago. But if it is not going to be part of the commission’s work, could Her Majesty's Government advise whether the Intelligence and Security Committee could have a remit to consider this issue? The relational problems are perhaps being exacerbated by the fact that the Cabinet Secretary, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, is investigating the previous behaviour of Her Majesty's Government. Would not the ISC, which is a parliamentary committee, be more neutrally placed to look into this matter to allay the fears of additional documentation being available that such an inadvertent disclosure has created?
I am afraid that I am not currently persuaded of the need for a full inquiry, but I completely understand the feelings of the Sikh community in lacking trust in their Government in this regard. It seems that they were never intended to know this information, which leads to legitimate concerns for the community of what else the Government know and questions about why the community should not have known this information after 30 years. As I am sure Her Majesty’s Government realise, it is one thing to express your apologies for the death of community members at the hands of a foreign Government. Quite another type of apology and restoration is needed if you have involvement, albeit limited and perhaps ineffective involvement, but involvement none the less, in the actions of a foreign Government in these types of matters. Undoing this relational damage will be difficult, but I struggle to see how this relationship can be fully restored unless the question is answered of why after 30 years the community could not in any event have known this information.
Finally, I note that the Indian Government are looking into this matter again. Can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether the UN is looking at holding some form of inquiry into the matter? I strongly support an international inquiry. If Her Majesty’s Government could support that, it would do something to improve relationships. I sympathise with Her Majesty’s Government over this inadvertent disclosure as restoring the relationship with the Sikh community will not be straightforward. I hope that they are able to do this, whether in the manner that I have outlined with the ISC or through another vehicle. Otherwise the views of political parties—I wait to hear with interest the views of those on the Benches opposite—on a full public inquiry could well become in May 2015 what political strategists call a wedge issue for voters.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I join everyone in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Singh, not just for securing the debate, but for the moving, careful and thoughtful way in which he introduced it. I appreciated that greatly, as I did the valuable history of the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, and its full recognition of the contribution of the Sikh community, which was again very moving. Like him, I have visited the Golden Temple. It is an inspiring and deeply religious place, where you feel the depth of belief.
People sometimes say that dreadful events occurred at a different time in our history when different understandings of what normality was held sway. This is not such a case. No such argument, in my view, is available. A massacre is a massacre. It came in the midst of many other outrages against the Sikh people. People are entitled to know with as much certainty as possible what happened and why, who was involved and with what level of culpability.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned Operation Sundown and other events, all of which contribute to the knowledge we need. Her Majesty’s Government must today understand this feeling among the Sikh community, not for any reasons to do with 2015 but because it is needed and right, and the community has a plain entitlement to know what happened and why. The nature of the terrible events at Amritsar in 1984 affects not only the Sikh community but all of us. It affects our country and our sense of decency—the values that we hold for ourselves, as well those held in that community.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, is of great importance. This was an inadvertent disclosure; it was always intended to be a permanent secret, whatever the pain that would cause—pain that could have been alleviated but which it was intended should not be because of secrecy. It has been said that the Indian Government at the time turned to the United Kingdom because, through the experience of Balcombe Street and other sieges, we had relevant experience. Be that as it may, Balcombe Street and Amritsar look to me to be very different, and their consequences hugely different.
The study by the Cabinet Secretary published recently states that he studied 23,000 documents in 200 files. He reports that key documents were destroyed as,
“part of a routine process”,
at the 25-year review point. The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, has also made the point about why some documents were destroyed. I share that view with him. The Cabinet Secretary concluded that we did nothing more in respect of Operation Blue Star than provide limited military advice. I am surprised that such a conclusion can be reached given the documents that are missing because they would have added great clarity. If he is so confident of these facts, it seems to me that he should not be. There is an information gap, which requires further investigation.
Sir Jeremy Heywood notes the high level of the request for assistance that was received. Mrs Ghandi, it is said, would not have understood a failure to help. However, he concludes that the assistance—the advice—was not subsequently taken. Indeed, he concludes that everyone thought our advice and assistance was insufficient and insignificant. In paragraph 19 of his report, he notes that Mrs Ghandi’s letter to Mrs Thatcher of 14 June 1984 made no reference to UK assistance at all. In paragraph 20, he notes that the military commander at Amritsar, Lieutenant-General Brar, said that no one had helped in planning or execution. This is seen by Sir Jeremy as compelling evidence of the United Kingdom’s minimal role. I find this nothing like as compelling as he appears to. At the least, it is untested by the kind of full inquiry that is plainly needed on this occasion and in the remarkable absence of Mrs Thatcher’s letter to Mrs Ghandi. Where is that letter and what does it say?
Sir Jeremy may be right. However, it is just as probable that the documents—the historical trail—were intended on this occasion to show how small the United Kingdom’s involvement was because it was thought that that was the best way of describing our approach. It is just as probable that a proud nation such as India, with a proud military commander, wanted to confirm the strength of its sovereign role and capability without making reference to anybody else. Such possibilities are commonplace in the relations between nations at this level. It is not fanciful, on the evidence that Sir Jeremy himself looked at, that other conclusions might be drawn. Sir Jeremy’s final assertion is, I fear, rather too shallow to remain unchallenged.
All of this flows to his main conclusions in paragraph 23. He is an exceptional civil servant, and I will always say so, but the conclusions are far from beyond challenge. An inquiry is the right place for a challenging examination, and nothing less will commend itself to the Sikh community, or indeed to the rest of us. Missing documents, insecure conclusions and a failure to grasp the context do not inspire confidence. However, the documents that are available provide some context. In those documents many express concern about the denigration of anyone who had anything to say about the matter as extremists. Her Majesty’s Government did that at the time. The view of Sikhs and other supporters of Mrs Thatcher’s Government would, I believe, regard what was said then as intolerable if it was said today. It should have been intolerable when it was said at the time.
This was and still is a remarkable community. Its offence was to object to a sequence of events and finally to the massacre of a large number of its members. It was perfectly entitled to object in those terms. What is more, researchers at Kew have found documents that were believed to be missing—some are still missing—which bear on the gaps I have tried to describe, as have other noble Lords in the debate. It is regrettable that our call for all the relevant documents to be placed in the public domain and for a list of those who were interviewed by Sir Jeremy is as yet not forthcoming. I regret the narrowness and limited timeframe of Sir Jeremy’s terms of reference. Again the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, made that point very forcefully. So tonight is, in my view, something of a watershed. This is not a small debate at the end of a busy day. Her Majesty’s Government cannot sidestep the issues tonight. An independent public inquiry is needed: they should agree to it tonight and do so with good grace. It will be forced on the Government either legally or by the outrage of the community so, rather than that, they should do it because it is right and it is inevitable, and take credit for doing the right thing.
Will the Minister give us a positive answer tonight? Will she agree to sufficiently wide terms of reference and an appropriate period to allow this matter to be investigated properly? When will the Prime Minister respond to these matters, and to the letter of 2 February from the Sikh Federation UK? When will its letter of 12 February setting out the fault lines in the Cabinet Secretary’s report receive a reply? When will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary meet representatives of the federation in order to ensure that progress can be made? Does the Minister accept that answers to whether Parliament was misled on 30 July 1984 have been misleading, having been based on what I can describe only as a somewhat deceitful piece of sophistry? Will she simply acknowledge that error? Will the United Kingdom’s military adviser’s report, provided to the Indian Government on 13 February 1984, be shared with Parliament so that it can assess whether the United Kingdom’s advice was taken or not? If it is thought that it is too sensitive, will it be provided through the Intelligence and Security Committee, as has also been discussed tonight?
I think all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate believe that there should be some form of inquiry, although in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, by an international body rather than a UK one—generally, I think we have all considered one undertaken by the UK—and I hope the Government will respond to that positively. That is because, finally, the Government will have to apologise, and should apologise, to the Sikh community. They can then explore with that community a positive act of reconciliation. It is time that this was resolved.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for securing this debate and for his patience in waiting until the end of the evening for it to be held. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, that this is not a debate which should simply be seen as something that happens at the end of the day. It should reflect the tragedy of what happened in Amritsar 30 years ago, which led to a great loss of life. That must never be forgotten. I understand the pain and suffering that these events inflicted on the Sikh community. It is still deeply felt in the United Kingdom and around the world. It was in deference to that strength of feeling that when, on 13 January, two documents published by the National Archives appeared to indicate that the then British Government had sent a military adviser to the Indian Government in the early stages of the crisis, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister ordered an immediate inquiry.
The investigation was treated with the utmost urgency and seriousness. The process has been made as transparent as possible and its findings have been made public. As I made clear to the House on 4 February, and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made equally clear in the other place, following his exhaustive review of over 23,000 documents, the Cabinet Secretary concluded that the UK’s assistance was purely advisory, was limited in both timescale and scope, was provided at an early stage and, consequently, had limited impact on events. No further information has emerged to suggest possible UK involvement in any other military operations in India in 1984.
On the same day that the Cabinet Secretary’s report was published, my right honourable friend the Minister of State for India and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government met Sikh representatives to discuss the findings of the report and to listen to their concerns. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Singh, was at that meeting. The meeting coincided with the Statement in your Lordships’ House, and I was thus not present. However, in my dual role at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and at the DCLG I met the noble Lord and other Sikh representatives last week to listen to the views of community members, who have now had three weeks to examine the Cabinet Secretary’s report.
At that meeting a number of issues were discussed and issues raised including those that have been raised in your Lordships’ House today. I shall address each in turn. My noble friend Lord Hussain asked a number of specific questions and I hope that I am addressing those too in dealing with these issues. First, on the focus of the investigation and whether it changed, from the outset the investigation looked at the circumstantial evidence that came to light on specific allegations of UK involvement in Operation Blue Star. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in the House on 4 February,
“the Cabinet Secretary has not turned up in producing the report, other circumstantial evidence that we think requires such investigation. Of course, we do not know what evidence will ever be turned up in future, so we cannot rule out all investigations for the future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/2/14; col. 149.]
My noble friend Lord Hussain asked specifically why the investigation did not look at events other than those in 1984. The search did not extend to any other timeframe such as 1986 or 1988 when, for example, Operation Black Thunder was undertaken. However, there was no indication from the files searched that there was any UK role in these.
On the allegation that the decision to provide advice may have been linked to UK commercial interests, the report found “no evidence to substantiate” this allegation. My right honourable friend stated:
“The investigation did not find any evidence in the files or from officials of the provision of UK military advice being linked to potential defence or helicopter sales, or to any other policy or commercial issue. There is no evidence that the UK, at any level, attempted to use the fact that military advice had been given on request to advance any commercial objective”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/2/14; col. 141.]
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans mentioned other operations. Operation Sundown was one to which I think he referred. The report states:
“Recent Indian media reports suggest the operational plan developed by the Indian interlocutors of the UK military adviser was called ‘Sundown’, and focused on detaining Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, the leader of the Sikh dissidents occupying Sri Harmandir Sahib. There is no mention of ‘Operation Sundown’ in UK files. Nor do those interviewed recall that name. Nor was the UK military adviser’s report of February focused on a ‘snatch’ operation. The plan it focused on was designed to re-establish control over the temple complex. It is, of course, possible that Indian planning went through several iterations after the UK military adviser’s visit and report”.
My noble friend Lord Hussain asked whether we would publish the UK military officer’s advice. It would not be in the interests of national security to release the tactical details of specialist military advice and under successive Governments it is not something that has been done. The noble Lord, Lord Singh, and my noble friend Lord Sheikh called for an international inquiry. On such calls, I say that the purpose of the Cabinet Secretary’s investigation was to establish the extent of UK government involvement in the Indian Government’s plans for military operations, not to look into the operation itself or the actions of the Indian Government. That is a matter for the Indian authorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, gave a number of hypothetical interpretations of what the documents could have been trying to suggest. However, the report focused on what the documents actually said and was written on that basis.
My noble friend Lord Hussain asked whether Parliament was misled at the time of Operation Blue Star, given the comments of the then PUS in a Written Answer in July 1984 that the UK had “not sought to discuss” the operation with the Indian Government. The Cabinet Secretary says in his report to the Prime Minister:
“My view is that the Parliamentary Question and Mr Whitney’s reply were almost certainly directed at the question of UK-Indian discussions post the storming of the temple complex”—
Sri Harmandir Sahib—
“and therefore in this context Mr Whitney did not mislead Parliament. This is reinforced by the fact that neither Mr Whitney nor his office were copied any of the relevant papers on the UK military officer’s earlier visit in February, which was treated as Top Secret. Mr Whitney is now deceased”.
My noble friends Lord Hussain and Lady Berridge asked why some relevant documents were destroyed. Some military files on various operations were destroyed in November 2009, including one on the provision of military advice to the Indian authorities on their contingency plans for Sri Harmandir Sahib. I understand that this was part of a routine process undertaken by the MoD at the 25-year review point. The decision to destroy files is made on a case-by-case basis and by assessing relevance to ongoing operations and the broader historic significance. In this instance, it was not felt necessary to preserve that file.
I assure my noble friend Lady Berridge that we are determined to look at the wider issues raised by these events about the management and release of information held by government. Under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the 30-year rule has been superseded by the 20-year rule that my noble friend referred to, so that, as from 2022, all annual releases will be after 20 years. However, it is not clear at the moment that this change is being approached in a uniform fashion by all departments. The Prime Minister has therefore decided to commission a review to establish the position across government on the annual release of papers and the ability and readiness of departments to meet the requirements of moving to the 20-year rule, including the processes for withholding information. That review is being carried out by the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, Sir Alex Allan.
As part of the Cabinet Secretary’s review, relevant departments have also searched their files for papers covering the handling of events at Amritsar from December 1983 through to the end of 1984. Some files extended to 1985. However, it is important to remember that, under established processes set out in long-standing legislation, it is not the date of each document that determines the release date but the date of the last document on a file. There will inevitably be other documents on India from 1984 in subsequent tranches of releases, but we are confident that we have secured all papers to do with UK advice on the tragic events in Amritsar in 1984. The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, referred specifically to the Lady Thatcher-Mrs Gandhi letter. That was released as part of a public release by the National Archives and is in the public domain.
In the wider context of the issues of concern to the Sikh community, the community meeting that I had, at which the noble Lord, Lord Singh, was present, discussed broader issues, including the way in which the British Sikh community is perceived now and was perceived at the time of the events in 1984. I stressed to him at the time that I believed that the working relationship between the Government and the Sikh community on domestic issues has been a good one. The Department for Communities and Local Government has engaged on a number of issues and, indeed, after being advised by the community, there have been some great successes. One is the wearing of turbans through airports, for example, and the use of swabs as opposed to the way in which it is done in some other European Union countries. I know that the Ministry of Justice is engaged on a whole series of issues with the British Sikh community, as is the Government Equalities Office around legislation on equalities and human rights.
However, I understand that whatever the relationship is with the British Sikh community, the issue remains one that raises huge concern. That is why I said to the noble Lord and to the community representatives at the time that if specific questions remain—some have been raised today—it is for officials to see what we can do to respond to them. I laid out a series of action points at the end of that meeting and I will certainly be writing to the Sikh Council, which appointed itself as the convenor of that meeting, as a way of communicating back to the community. I will make sure that copies of that correspondence are sent back to the noble Lord, Lord Singh, and that the conversation between the Government and the British Sikh community continues.
In conclusion, the families of those who were killed at Sri Harmandir Sahib have had to live with the hurt of that day for three decades, and the pain of their loss is clearly still keenly felt. The suggestion that the British Government may have had a hand in the tragedy will have understandably shaken the Sikh community, a group that makes such a valuable and positive contribution to our society. However, this Government, perhaps more than any other, have recognised the need for honesty and transparency when it comes to the darker moments of our past. That is why, when concerns were raised, we took instant action. All the evidence has been properly and thoroughly examined.
The Cabinet Secretary’s investigation and the published report have made clear a number of things. The UK’s assistance was limited; it was purely advisory. It had limited impact on the tragic events that unfolded at the temple three months later and the advice was not given in exchange for any commercial gain. There is no record of the British Government receiving advance notice of the operation.
I know that the events of 30 years ago will continue to be deeply distressing for all those whose lives they touched, but I hope that this investigation and the open manner in which it has been conducted will provide some reassurance to the Sikh community, to this House and to the public. I am once again grateful to the noble Lord for providing the opportunity for us to discuss the matter today.