House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
1. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
2. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
3. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.
Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)
4. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
10. What steps he is taking to improve competition in energy markets.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
From day one of the coalition we have worked to improve competition in energy markets. Deregulation stimulated growth in the number and size of small independent suppliers, competing with the big six we inherited, and we have taken action to encourage switching, including easier switching, faster switching and collective switching. Ofgem’s retail market reforms and market maker obligation are also improving competition in both wholesale and retail markets. However, because we believe more should be done, I asked Ofgem and the competition authorities to make an annual assessment and last week we backed its proposal for a market investigation reference.
Ann McKechin
I welcome the referral to the Competition Commission. In an article earlier this year the Secretary of State criticised Labour’s proposals to put up a ring fence between the generation and supply arms of the vertically integrated energy companies saying it would push up prices. Is he still ruling out the introduction of a ring fence?
Mr Davey
What we need to do in these matters is to go on the evidence and recommendations of the competition experts. I would not prejudge the market reference—let us see what it says—and I am glad the hon. Lady welcomes that, but one of the things the Opposition have failed to recognise is that there may be problems in the gas market, where there is not vertical integration. The Opposition have been completely silent on this matter, and I am not surprised as I am afraid their competition policies in this area have been appalling.
Chi Onwurah
Is the Secretary of State not embarrassed that despite his Government’s talk of market forces, competition, switching and incentives, it took the threat of intervention from a future Labour Prime Minister to bring about the prospect of some relief—[Laughter.] The Secretary of State laughs but it took that to bring about the prospect of some relief for hard-pressed energy consumers.
Mr Davey
I think the hon. Lady ought to talk to the leader of her party because when he was doing my job he said, after many years of increases in gas and electricity prices that were higher and faster than they have been under this Government:
“As I have said before in the House, I am not in favour of referring these matters to the Competition Commission.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2010; Vol. 506, c. 444.]
When the Leader of the Opposition had the chance to take this measure, he did not.
Mr Bain
May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the fact that the Institute for Public Policy Research has said that increasing competition in the energy market will produce efficiency savings which could mean £70 a year being knocked off the average bill? Why will he not back Labour’s plan to break the domination of the big six, require them to sell power into a pool, get new businesses into the market and cut bills for consumers and businesses?
Mr Davey
Some Labour Members are suffering from amnesia. It was the Labour party that created the big six. It was this coalition that deregulated to enable new independent suppliers to come into the market—11 new suppliers coming in since 2010, and there has been a big increase in the number of customers for the smaller suppliers, who are taking on the big six. It is this party and this coalition Government who have been the force behind competition, while Labour Members are the friends of the big six.
Jim McGovern
The leader of my party has made a commitment to freeze energy prices. The coalition Government refused to do that. Why?
Mr Davey
It is always interesting to hear about this because when the Leader of the Opposition talks about an energy price freeze, he is not absolutely clear that it will go ahead. When he was on the “Today” programme in September 2013, he was asked what would happen if wholesale prices were to rise, and he admitted that the price freeze might not go ahead, which is not something that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is prepared to admit. I have to say that we need to read the small print of this price freeze because it might not happen. It is a con.
Andrew Gwynne
The Secretary of State wants to have his cake and eat it. Does he not see that the Ofgem report and the referral to the competition authorities makes it clear that the market is just not working in the interests of consumers? It is going to take at least 18 months for them to report, and then he is going to have to implement the recommendations. Why does he not just do the decent thing and introduce a price freeze now?
Mr Davey
We have been reforming the energy markets since day one, but we were not happy enough with the results and we wanted to do more, because of the mess we had inherited. That is why we asked the competition authorities to look at this matter. They have proposed a market investigation reference, and we are completely behind that. Neither we nor Ofgem are going to stand still during that 18 months, however. We are going to be working on trying to improve the markets even before the market investigation reference reports. We are being really active on reducing switching times, for example. We also want to push the smart meter roll-out programme, which will help people, and the Ofgem retail market review will complete and implement its proposals, including taking customers off dead tariffs. We have acted, we are acting and we will continue to act on behalf of customers. The last Government failed to do so.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to examine the role of the regulator, Ofgem, in improving and increasing competition? How is it that above-inflation—sometimes double-digit—price increases have been allowed, when they are not allowed in other sectors, such as water?
Mr Davey
Price controls were taken off this sector in 2002, so Ofgem does not have the power to control prices. Hon. Members should remind themselves that it was the Labour party that took the price controls off. We want to ensure that the regulatory framework and the policies are correct. That is one of the reasons we are pushing the policies that we have adopted. It is also interesting to remind colleagues of the record of the Labour party and its leader. When he was doing my job in 2009, the right hon. Gentleman talked about reforming Ofgem, saying that
“the regulator needs stronger powers to deal with abuse, and the Bill will specifically act to prevent the exploitation of market power by energy generators.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2009; Vol. 501, c. 412.]
What went wrong with Labour’s plans when it was in government?
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
If we are to improve the energy markets, we must also increase capacity, as this Government have rightly noted. Does the Secretary of State welcome the fact that my local enterprise partnership is launching a plan for a skills centre in Berkeley, so that we will have the skills to deliver the extra capacity that we need?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to see a big investment in the skills and expertise of our young people, as well as in the existing work force. This is a great opportunity, given the massive investment taking place in our energy sector, and we are going to need all the young people that the skills centre in his constituency can deliver.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that increasing competition in the energy market, as in any other market, requires the Government to remove red tape and regulation and the barriers to entry so as to increase the number of new entrants to the market?
Mr Davey
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question; that is exactly what we did in 2010. Since then, we have seen a boom in the number and size of independent suppliers taking on the big six that Labour created. As Ofgem and the competition authorities’ assessment makes clear, however, we need to see more progress. That is why I am strongly behind the market investigation reference.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
There is already a cash gap between what the big six are planning to spend on infrastructure and the amount that needs to be spent. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a price freeze would serve only to discourage competition, which would reduce investment and place a greater burden on the taxpayer and the consumer?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this point is not discussed enough. When we talk to the industry, and to investors in the UK and internationally, they tell us that one of the things they fear most from Labour’s price freeze is that it would prevent them from going ahead with the investments that they want to make. A price freeze would undermine investment; it would represent a lurch back to the ’70s. Let us look around Europe to see what has happened when price freezes have been implemented. Hungary implemented a price freeze—indeed, a price cut—recently, and investment there has plummeted. All that is needed is a grasp of standard economics, but the Labour party does not appear to have even that.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Secretary of State is well aware, competition in our energy markets is partly governed by EU regulations, particularly those relating to state aid. In the light of the announcement by UK Coal yesterday, will he confirm what the trade unions learned in talks with the Commission this week—namely, that the attitude to Government support to prevent the immediate closure of the two deep pits at Kellingley and Thoresby is much more flexible than his officials’ interpretation seems to suggest? Given that the amount of support required would be less than one tenth of the £700 million that the miners’ pension scheme paid to the Government last month, does he agree that he and his officials should be taking urgent action to prevent immediate job losses?
Mr Davey
The energy Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), has been working tirelessly on this matter with our officials. I hope the Opposition will recognise the huge efforts that officials in my Department, under his leadership, have been putting into it. We have been talking to all parties, including the Commission, to make sure that interpretations are based on the law, and we will do whatever we can to help.
Mr Speaker
I always bear the hon. Gentleman in mind, but we will hear from Mr Hollobone first.
Mr Hollobone
For competition to work best, domestic consumers have to be able to switch their suppliers easily. Residents in Kettering want to pay the lowest prices for their electricity and gas, but many constituents, especially those who are elderly or not online, find the complexity of bills overwhelming and far too confusing. What can the Secretary of State do to take the hassle out of switching supplier?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend makes a good point. One aim of the retail market review put forward by Ofgem was to reduce the complexity and confusion in the amount of tariffs, which many people thought was a barrier to competition and switching—the previous Government refused to do this. But I do not think we can rest there, and one reason I have been so supportive of things such as collective switching and engaging with the third sector—Age Concern, Citizens Advice and National Energy Action—to develop the big energy saving network is to ensure that we are reaching out to those people who find switching, even when the tariffs are more simplified, a difficult process and a hassle. We are doing everything we can to make sure that the benefits of switching and competition can be enjoyed by all.
Mr Skinner
Yes, have your conversation with the man who is dealing with coal, because this is very important. The Secretary of State referred to lurching back to the ’70s, but this is about the fact that we are reaching the end of an era. There will be one pit left if this decision goes through and it is all about some money. An idea has been put forward from those on the Labour Front Bench regarding the pension fund, but another solution could also be used. Why is it that the oil companies are being encouraged to take tax breaks in order to exploit those narrow seams of oil which are uneconomic? We have more than 100 million tonnes of coal beneath our soil, so surely he could use the same sort of system, with the EU and anybody else, to stop the demise and the closure of the last three remaining pits.
Mr Davey
We are working tirelessly on this. We have to make sure that we get a solution that all parties can sign up to, that provides value for money and that will actually work. We are trying our best, but the hon. Gentleman should know that there are genuine economic and geological issues, and other difficulties, involved. My right hon. Friend the energy Minister is trying to resolve this, working with everybody involved.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
5. What assessment he has made of the effect of energy policies on energy-intensive industries.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
8. What steps he has taken to support energy-intensive industries.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
We recognise the competitiveness concerns of electricity-intensive industries, which is why the recent Budget included new compensation for the costs of the renewables obligation and feed-in tariffs, and capped the carbon price support mechanism. We are also providing compensation for the costs of the European Union emissions trading scheme, and to date we have paid out £31 million to 53 companies.
Margot James
Following the £7 billion package of support for the energy-intensive industries, EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation, said that it will
“help to level the playing field these companies need to compete effectively with others around the globe, and keep production here in the UK.”
What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the potential for reshoring in the chemicals sector, now that conditions are so much more attractive to investors?
Michael Fallon
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. By 2018-19, British business will have saved some £4 billion from the measures we have put in place. We have cut green taxes for households and now we are cutting green taxes for business. That should be a further incentive for the chemical industry not only to grow in this country, but to bring further investment back to the UK.
Nic Dakin
Will the Minister take this opportunity to guarantee to energy-intensive industries that the compensation for the carbon floor tax that this Government introduced will be backdated to the date from which the Government have promised compensation, which is April 2013?
Michael Fallon
Carbon price floor compensation is something that we are still pursuing with the Commission in Brussels. I am hopeful that that will be agreed soon. The state aid clearance procedures are lengthy in these cases. Obviously, we are continuing to press the case for backdating.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
The carbon price floor tax introduced by this Government makes it four times harder for UK industry to compete with EU competitors. How many companies have received compensation for the carbon price floor tax? Is it more than one or fewer than one?
Michael Fallon
We have introduced compensation for the EU emissions trading system, as I have said. We have already paid out compensation to more than 50 companies in the steel, paper and chemical industries. Some of the major industries concerned have welcomed the further proposals that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, including Tata Steel, which said that the measures that were announced in the Budget
“will make an important difference to Tata Steel in the UK.”
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
6. What steps the Government are taking to help people who live in park homes to reduce their energy bills.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Unlike previous schemes, park homes are now eligible for the energy company obligation, and some park homes have already begun to benefit from support. Additionally, we have made it possible, since February this year, to create an energy performance certificate—an EPC—for a park home, and this lifts a key barrier to accessing green deal finance for park homes.
Annette Brooke
I thank the Minister for his reply, and it is heartening to hear that some progress has been made after the very many questions that I have asked on the subject. I know that he will agree that we are talking about some very vulnerable people who are terribly exposed to energy prices. There is an imperative to get better insulation. How widespread is the publicity about this help, and has he found a way around the joint metering for electricity and water and the subsequent recharging, which often seems to add even more to their energy pricing?
Gregory Barker
The hon. Lady raises a valid point. Frankly, successive Governments have failed to act sufficiently for park home residents. Although the measures that we have taken move the agenda on, we accept that there is more to do, and we want to do more to help park home residents. Providing better information and support is part of that strategy, and we are making more information available to residents. We are looking to see what further steps we can take to help to insulate the homes of park home residents.
Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
One problem with energy in many park homes is that the supply is in the name of the operator of the site, who then sells on the energy to the tenants. One quirk of that is that under the warm home discount the name of the tenant must be on the bill, and it is not in these cases, so although these tenants would otherwise qualify, they do not in fact get the warm home discount. Will the Minister look at that and see whether there is a way around that anomaly?
Gregory Barker
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. That has made it difficult for successive Governments to reach out and act effectively to help park home residents. We are determined to try to crack this, and we are looking carefully at exactly the point he makes.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
7. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
14. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
15. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
16. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
There are three main actions we are taking to help households with energy bills, including direct financial help, improving competition and energy efficiency. With direct financial help, the coalition introduced the warm home discount, which will take £140 off the energy bills of over 2 million of the poorest households this year. We permanently trebled cold weather payments, and we continue to spend over £2 billion a year on winter fuel payments. Last December, we reviewed Government policy costs, to take an average of £50 a year off a household’s bill.
Gavin Shuker
Today, 3.4 million people pay their energy bills with their credit cards. Although some will do that to manage their finances efficiently, half report that they are doing it because of the rising costs of energy. Is it not about time we had a price freeze?
Mr Davey
A bit of a non-sequitur there! We have made it very clear that we are doing everything we can to help the people on the lowest incomes, and we shall shortly be publishing our fuel poverty strategy, the first in more than a decade. It is interesting to note that when we considered how fuel poverty was measured under the previous Government, we found it was very inaccurate. We have therefore improved it so we can get to the people who are really struggling. The hon. Gentleman knows in his heart of hearts that the price freeze is a complete con. It will not help consumers, but it will undermine competition and prices will end up going up.
Cathy Jamieson
The over-75s are the most likely to live in the least energy-efficient homes and are most vulnerable to cold weather, yet they are the least likely to switch energy suppliers so they often pay more than they need to. Will the Secretary of State back Labour’s call for all over-75s to be put on to the lowest possible tariff?
Grahame M. Morris
The Secretary of State mentioned going back to the 1970s. I hope he has seen the Office for National Statistics figures published yesterday on hourly pay rates, which showed that on average they are down 7.6%, and twice as much in construction. Why can the 36,000 households in my constituency that would benefit from a price freeze not enjoy the £120 they would have if he implemented such a freeze?
Mr Hepburn
Since the Tories privatised the energy companies, things have got worse, with more than 6 million households now behind on their bills. When will the Government stop tweaking prices in the energy sector and take on the energy giants that are making billions at the expense of ordinary people in this country?
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman really is suffering from amnesia. There was a 13-year period in which Labour could have done something about that and failed. In fact, Labour took price controls off. The leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party refused to refer the energy markets to the Competition Commission; this Government have done that.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
Some of the highest fuel bills and worst fuel poverty are faced by people in rural areas who are off the gas grid and by the small but even more vulnerable group of people who do not even have mains electricity. Is my right hon. Friend going to introduce some targeted measures to help these vulnerable groups?
Mr Davey
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that many households that are off the gas grid and the small number that are off the electricity grid suffer high energy bills. Interestingly, the new analysis we have done for our fuel poverty strategy shows much more clearly than the measures used under the previous policy that that is a key group of people we need to help. That is what we will be doing very soon when we produce our draft fuel poverty strategy, in which he will see a number of measures.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Further to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), when will off-grid rural residents get a fair share of energy company obligation spending? Will the Secretary of State ensure that rule changes do not create another loophole by focusing on off-grid customers in general rather than off-grid rural customers in particular?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The private rented sector has the highest proportion of the most energy-inefficient homes, which leads to high energy bills and fuel poverty. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need a robust and enforceable minimum standard for all such homes, and will he explain the failure of the Government’s proposal to specify that that minimum standard should be at least an energy performance certificate band E for all homes?
Mr Davey
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. She will know that this Government brought in a power in the Energy Act 2011 that would allow us to introduce legislation and regulations for the private rented sector. We plan to consult on that soon and take the sort of measures I think she will support.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
The most sustainable way to cut bills is to improve the energy efficiency of our homes. On 16 January the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), told the House:
“we have extended the ECO out to 2017 and increased the number of people that it will help.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2014; Vol. 573, c. 987.]
Will the Secretary of State explain why the impact assessment published by his Department on 5 March says that 440,000 fewer households will get help with energy efficiency following the changes to the ECO?
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
12. What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Ofgem.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
The Government formally reviewed Ofgem’s role in 2011. Since that review, we have strengthened its powers to investigate and penalise market manipulation, and Ofgem has taken firm action to improve competition, including reforms of the retail and wholesale markets. Last week it proposed referring the energy markets to the competition authorities—the first ever such reference.
Graham Stringer
Finally, one might say, Ofgem has referred the six big energy companies to the Competition and Markets Authority. If the Minister reads the small print in Ofgem’s statement, however, he will find that it does not cover power generation. Is that not another failure by Ofgem to deal with the problem properly? It is not possible to deal with the issue if power generation is left out. Is it not time that Ofgem had the plug pulled on it and we had a real regulator with teeth?
Michael Fallon
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not right about that. This reference is of the energy market; it includes power generation. Simply winding up Ofgem would mean that another regulator had to be set up in its place. Labour set up Ofgem, and now they want to abolish it, but they would have to set up another regulator. They seem to have a quango fetish.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Does the Minister of State agree with the consumer report published by Which? at the end of last year which said that consumers had been put out by £4 billion a year since 2010? If he does agree with that report, does he think it is consistent with the regulator having done a good job, as he has just assured the House it has done?
Michael Fallon
This Government and the regulator have introduced simpler tariffs and clearer bills and made it easier to switch. The regulator has fined companies a total of £30 million since 2011. Last year it fined a single company, SSE, £10.5 million.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Last December the Secretary of State declared that Ofgem was fit for purpose. Is not last week’s reference to the CMA evidence that it is not fit for purpose and needs to be scrapped?
Michael Fallon
It is Ofgem that made the reference, so I do not follow the hon. Lady’s logic. We have strengthened the powers of the regulator, and for the first time ever, the regulator has referred the energy markets to the competition authorities. That is evidence of a strong regulator doing its job.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
13. What steps the Government is taking to ensure security of energy supply.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
18. What steps the Government is taking to ensure security of energy supply.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
For the security of electricity supply, we are taking short, medium and long-term actions. In the short term, National Grid and Ofgem are implementing a reserve of power stations—stations that would otherwise be mothballed or closed—to be used if necessary, and we are actively supporting new proposals for interconnectors with Europe. In the medium term, we have finalised our plan for a capacity market, and plan to run the first auction for capacity later this year. In the long term, we have introduced our electricity market reform which is leading to the current boom in low-carbon energy investment.
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend will know that under the previous Government, the number of energy suppliers halved, which did nothing to promote energy security. Will he set out the steps that this Government are taking to ensure that new entrants come into the marketplace to promote competition and energy security?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is right. The generating market, to which not enough attention is paid, is becoming more competitive. The amount of electricity traded on the day ahead market has increased from 5% to more than 50%, which has really improved competition, and Ofgem’s measures to create more liquidity in the forward market, which take effect next week, will enable the entry for which he asks.
Julian Sturdy
Given the public backlash throughout the country against onshore wind farms, will the Secretary of State update me on future investment for tidal and wave energy, which is a much less intrusive form of renewable energy that can provide a constant energy supply that would help to deal with security in the future?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend and I may disagree about onshore wind, as I have visited many popular sites from which local communities see real benefits, but I agree that tidal and wave power has a big future. The Government, and especially the Minister for climate change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), have been active by allocating £20 million for tidal arrays and ensuring that the EU provides funding for other projects. Generous support has also been given through the renewables obligation certificate and contract for difference systems.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Given the almost complete lack of movement on investment for all the permissioned sites for gas-fired power stations, the Department’s estimates of spiralling costs for the capacity market mechanism, the state aid difficulties with proposals for that mechanism and the mothballing of existing power stations, will the Secretary of State review the case for a strategic reserve mechanism, which his Department suggested in 2011 would be a far less expensive and more secure method of supplying future capacity?
Mr Davey
The hon. Gentleman is very knowledgeable about such matters, but our plans for the capacity market are on schedule, so the fears that he voices are not there. He talks about the benefits of a strategic reserve, which we debated during the passage of the Bill that became the Energy Act 2013, but what National Grid and Ofgem are doing in the short term has similarities with a strategic reserve, yet avoids the disadvantage of creating perverse incentives for the wider energy market.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that security of supply will not be enhanced by the closure of two of the last three deep mines, Kellingley and Thoresby, and open-cast mines? Bearing in mind the fact that the Government have taken £4.5 billion from the mineworkers’ pension scheme, including £700 million this year, surely it is not beyond their imagination to use the miners’ own money to support what is left of the industry.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Ogfem tells us in its most recent energy capacity report that supply will fall by about 5% between 2012 and 2016, leaving an estimated capacity margin of between 2% and 4% in 2016. Will the Secretary of State confirm that contingency planning is allowing for that and that a cold winter will not cause the industry to have to close shifts?
Mr Davey
I can confirm that. Obviously, we have been preparing for that for some time and working with the industry, National Grid and Ofgem. As I said, we have short-term plans with National Grid to have a reserve of power plants, as well as our longer-term reforms regarding the capacity market, so I can confirm that the lights will stay on.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Under this Government, just one new gas-fired power station is being commissioned and three power stations have been mothballed. Last week, National Grid warned that any delays to the planned capacity mechanism auction in December could lead to brown-outs throughout the UK. The Secretary of State indicated earlier that the plans are on track, but will he clearly confirm once and for all that there will be no delays to the auction later this year?
Mr Davey
We are on track. We are working both within the Department and across Government. We saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirm in the Budget that all the remaining issues are being taken forward in secondary legislation. The right hon. Lady will know that there is a state aid case at the Commission. We do not control the Commission—no Government ever do—but our communications and partnership working with the Commission have been very fruitful.
Caroline Flint
My understanding is that the auction can be held before that, but let me ask another question. Even if capacity auctions are not delayed, they will not be operational until 2018-19, which is why we need the supplemental balancing reserve in time for the capacity crunch this winter and the next. The timetable for that has already slipped, meaning that some plant cannot be brought out of mothballing in time for this winter. Does the Secretary of State believe that the supplemental balancing reserve is still required, and if it is, when will it be operational?
Mr Davey
As the right hon. Lady will know, Ofgem has to consult on this. It is expected to complete and announce its plans in May. If, as I expect, Ofgem believes that we should continue for this winter with a supplemental balancing reserve, the working assumption is that the auction would follow fast behind that.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
17. What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
Over 600,000 homes have so far received energy-efficiency improvements as a result of the coalition’s energy company obligation and green deal initiatives. Green deal assessments are stimulating interest. There had been more than 160,000 green deal assessments by the end of February, and yesterday we announced an additional £88 million from the Government to drive a street-by-street roll-out of the green deal under the communities scheme. We expect the green deal market to continue to expand during 2014.
Siobhain McDonagh
My constituent, Mr Davis, has late onset spina bifida. He needs a wide range of electrical equipment just to live his daily life, including an electric bed and wheelchair, and machines to keep his legs from swelling. Because Mr Davis has an occupational pension and is not in receipt of means-tested benefit, he cannot get any of EDF’s energy-efficient schemes or special tariffs. As a result, he pays £250 a month for electricity. After this week’s Work and Pensions Committee report criticising the Government for targeting disabled people, what can the Minister do to help Mr Davis?
Gregory Barker
I am very concerned about the point that the hon. Lady raises about her constituent. Obviously, there are some specifics involved—for example, how much his occupational pension is. Clearly, she is concerned and I would be happy to look at the matter in more detail if she would like to meet me.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister keeps making announcements about how well the green deal is going, but it does not seem to be going very fast. No one today has mentioned smart metering. Many of us thought the way to make our constituents more conscious of how much they are spending on energy and reducing it would be through smart metering. How is smart metering rolling out now?
Gregory Barker
We have one of the most ambitious smart metering programmes in Europe, which we will roll out over this decade. The hon. Gentleman is right—the increasing deployment of smart meters will certainly work well with the green deal. If he talks to some of the entrepreneurs and the new companies coming into the market, which are backing the green deal and getting behind it, he will get a very encouraging picture indeed. There is a huge amount of innovation happening that we should all be proud of.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
The sector with the most energy-inefficient homes is without doubt the private rented sector, with thousands of people living in cold, inadequate homes that are expensive to heat. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referenced the fact that the Energy Act 2011 placed a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce a minimum standard for this sector from April 2018 at the latest. The Secretary of State was worryingly equivocal in his answer. Will the Minister therefore give a cast-iron promise today that this duty will be fulfilled, without loopholes and with the minimum standard at energy performance certificate rating E by 2018?
Gregory Barker
We would not have brought forward that measure in the Bill had we not intended to fulfil it. This is a coalition commitment, which we are proud of. We will make sure that it is implemented properly and we will consult appropriately. We are proud of that Bill and we are going to implement it.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)
Since the last Question Time we have continued to see strong investment and growth in Britain’s low-carbon electricity sector. Last year, for example, renewables accounted for a record 14.8% of all electricity generated in the UK, a 28% year-on-year increase. The news that Siemens and Associated British Ports are to invest £310 million in their wind turbine factories in Hull underlines the fact that the UK is the best place in the world to invest in offshore wind. On bills, we received the competition report from Ofgem and the competition authorities and strongly support the proposed market investigation reference. On climate change, we received the second of three reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which confirmed that climate change impacts are already occurring on all continents and across the oceans. It should now be clear to everyone that unless we take strong action on climate change, the dangers to human health, food security and the global economy will become intolerable.
Graeme Morrice
The Secretary of State recently spoke at a renewables conference in Edinburgh. He correctly highlighted that, with a third of the support for renewable energy going to Scotland, which has less than a tenth of the population, consumers in all parts of the UK contribute to, and benefit from, Scotland’s renewable energy potential. Does he agree that such pooling and sharing of energy potential and resources, rather than Scotland leaving the UK, is the best way of getting the most cost-effective low-carbon energy for my constituents and his?
Mr Davey
I am delighted to say that I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman is right that the single energy market across Great Britain is a source of benefit for all British citizens, ensuring that we have cheaper and more secure energy and enabling us to go green much more effectively. Rather than being independent, our energy systems are interdependent. We are better together.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
T4. Does my right hon. Friend agree that any Government-imposed price freeze on energy companies would be counter-productive, not least because prices would be likely to rocket afterwards, and in the meantime the discouragement of investment in the sector would be deeply damaging?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but I think it is even worse than he says, because a price freeze would reduce competition. Not only would the big six put up their energy bills after the price freeze ended, but there would be less competition in the years ahead.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
T2. Like many people across the country, I am suffering at the moment as a result of the poor air quality. Does the Secretary of State think that the poor air quality is due mainly to sand or to emissions from power stations in other parts of Europe? What is he doing with his European Union counterparts to ensure that we get energy security in Europe, because of the threat of Russia turning off energy supplies, and to ensure air quality in Britain by having cleaner power stations?
Mr Davey
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is suffering—as he can see, I am too. He makes a valid point, because air pollution is a serious issue. Although it is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we take it very seriously. Most analysis shows that the air pollution that is most damaging in UK cities comes from the transport sector, but clearly we will do all we can. It is yet another good reason for going green.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
T6. Communities to the east of my constituency are facing proposals for two 80-metre wind turbines. To add to their misery, proposals are in the pipeline for a further 40 wind farms across York in the council’s draft local plan. Given that we have already achieved the Government’s target capacity of 13 GW for onshore wind, including those in the planning process and those that have planning permission, will the Secretary of State agree to look again at the subsidy for onshore wind and attempt to rebalance it in favour of other renewables?
Mr Davey
I have to tell my hon. Friend that we are favouring other renewables. Offshore wind and other renewables get much higher strike prices. With regard to the spend from our low-carbon electricity budget, under the levy control framework they get more support because they are less mature technologies. As the technologies mature, we have been reducing support, whether for solar or onshore wind, in particular. Onshore wind is playing a vital role. It is the cheapest large-scale renewable technology, and I would not want to do anything to reduce its deployment.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
That last answer was very interesting because
“Onshore wind is by far the cheapest large-scale renewable energy source that can be deployed at significant scale.”
Those are not my words, nor the words of the onshore wind industry, but those of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Yet it was reported this week that the Prime Minister wants, in effect, a moratorium on onshore wind. What impact does the Secretary of State think such loose talk has on investment, and does he support the Prime Minister on this issue?
Mr Davey
The coalition’s policy is to continue to support the deployment of onshore wind. We already have 7.2 GW operational—a very big increase under this coalition—as well as 5.2 GW that have been consented and 6.5 GW in planning. We do not expect all that to come forward, but it does suggest that investors believe that Britain is a good place for onshore wind.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
I heard with interest the Secretary of State’s answer which demonstrated how European support for renewable green energy makes a substantial contribution to energy security. Is he surprised that climate change sceptics often seem also to be Eurosceptics?
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
T3. The Secretary of State will know that almost alone among advanced economies, the UK economy is still smaller, and our industry is still producing less, than before the global financial crisis. Does he agree that strategic industries such as steelmaking are essential for growth that is more manufacturing-based and investment and export-led? While the Budget announcement of relief on the rising costs of the renewables obligation is very welcome, two years is too long to wait. Will he seriously consider the case that Tata and other energy-intensive users are making to bring this in sooner?
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
Tata Steel has made it clear that it welcomes the announcement in the Budget. It is important not to promise a scheme that could not necessarily be delivered by April 2015, because these schemes, like the others, take time to receive state aid clearance in Brussels.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
What are the procedures for a fracking permit to be issued for deep-well shale gas drilling, and what opportunities will those living locally have to express their concerns about the process in the planning application?
Michael Fallon
The process is that applicants must first have a licence and then receive planning permission from the local planning authority. They then need authorisation from the Health and Safety Executive for the method of fracking, permits from the Environment Agency concerning the protection of water and the environment, and, finally, a consent from the Department. The key to that process is that the major decision within it is local. It is a matter for the local planning authority to decide whether the application, on its merits, is appropriate for that particular site.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
T5. Almost 5,000 households in my constituency are living in fuel poverty. Apart from increasing energy bills by an average of £60 this year and cutting insulation projects by 90%, what is the Secretary of State doing on this issue? Please do not refer to the green deal, which is a complete flop. My constituents want a price freeze. Why does he prefer energy company profits over people who cannot afford to heat their homes?
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)
This Government are absolutely determined to do more for the fuel-poor. That is why we are bringing in the first refresh of the fuel poverty strategy in over a decade and doing more and more to help the vulnerable. We do not just want a cosmetic price freeze that would chill investment; we are taking practical measures to help people this winter by reducing their bills by £50 and paying the warm home discount, with up to £135 off bills for over 2 million of the most vulnerable.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Despite much positive news in recent weeks, Ministers will be aware of the concern in the Yorkshire and Humber region following the decision in the recent funding round not to support Eggborough in converting to biomass. Will the Minister update the House on the future of biomass generation?
Michael Fallon
Biomass generation is one of the technologies that is receiving support under our final investment decision renewables round. We had some 16 applications, which include biomass generation, and we hope to be able to confirm the first investment contracts under that regime this month.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
There are 4,627 households in my constituency living in fuel poverty, yet across the nation only 33 people signed up to the green deal last month, the lowest level in any month so far. Does the Minister agree that that is simply unacceptable?
Gregory Barker
Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is confusing green deal finance, an option for everyone who does the green deal, with the actual installation of green deal measures. As I said earlier, over 160,000 people have benefited from green deal assessments, over 80% of those people are installing measures and over 600,000 people have benefited from the combination of the energy company obligation and the green deal. I would say to him, wake up and read the real figures.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
One of the most valuable initiatives of the previous Labour Government was the publication in 2006 of Nicholas Stern’s review of the economics of climate change. In view of what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to say this week, would it be worthwhile to revisit the conclusions of the Stern review and to update it, so that we see the true threats, but also the opportunities, of climate change in this country?
Mr Davey
My hon. Friend is right that commissioning the Stern review was one of the better things that the previous Government did. It very much feeds into our policy. He will be interested to know that as we go ahead to the September summit of the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, for Heads of State to discuss climate change, the Government have commissioned a new report, working with a number of other countries across the world. It will look at the benefits and opportunities in tackling climate change and is called, “The New Climate Economy”. It will be presented to Heads of State by the former President of Mexico, President Calderon. We believe it will be very influential in getting political momentum at the highest level behind action on climate change.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that a recent London assembly report revealed that 76% of disabled Londoners are having to cut back on their heating to be able to afford the bills. What realistic steps are the Government taking to protect vulnerable groups in fuel poverty?
Gregory Barker
Very practical steps—we are now paying the warm home discount, which will reach a record 2 million people this winter. That is in addition to the other measures of winter fuel payments for pensioners and cold weather payments when necessary. We will be publishing our fuel poverty strategy soon, which will look thoroughly at the whole landscape to make sure that we are doing as much as we can.
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
The survival of UK Coal and Kellingley colliery in my constituency depends on all parties bringing something to the table, including UK Coal, Harworth Estates, the Pension Protection Fund, the unions and the Government. Will the Minister update the House and my very worried constituents on what the Government are doing to ensure the survival of this important industry? Will he also update the House on the progress of the talks?
Michael Fallon
On 21 March, new proposals for a managed closure of the two collieries—not survival—were submitted to the Government on behalf of a number of interested parties and supported by the existing UK Coal management team. We have been considering those proposals with interested parties and with the Commission in Brussels. I am fully aware of the urgency of the situation and will continue to keep the House informed.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State rightly spoke of the importance of last week’s IPCC report on climate change. Will he tell the House of any new policy he is considering in the light of that report as a way of advancing progress from the UK on these matters?
Mr Davey
I think that the most important thing we are doing at the moment on this issue is trying to get EU-wide agreement on the energy and climate change package for 2030, including a very ambitious binding target on greenhouse gas reductions, which will be binding on the UK as well as other member states. We have been leading that, and last year I set up the green growth group to get all the ambitious states together. Following the March Council, I am very optimistic that we will get agreement on an ambitious package for Europe and the UK at least by October.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The latest quarterly figures reveal that the share of the UK’s electricity generated from renewable sources rose year on year from an eighth of our electricity supply to a sixth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to go further in reducing carbon emissions from our energy supply and that, given that the largest share of that increase came from onshore wind, that should play a key part?
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
If we can get away from the green deal for a bit, we can talk about 1,300 jobs that are going to go in two of the last three pits in Britain—people who work in the blackness of a coal mine. I want to know the answer to a question that Ministers have been asked on three separate occasions: was there a proposal to use the money from the mineworkers’ pension fund—not the protection fund—in order to save these two pits? Was it raised with the EU? What is the answer? It is time the Government came clean.
Michael Fallon
Let me be very clear: these issues are being and have been discussed with the unions. I had discussions with the unions last week and we continue to discuss the proposals with the Commission. Any proposal for taxpayer support would have to show good value for money and it would have to be for a clearly defined period. We continue to discuss the proposals for a managed closure with all the parties involved.
Business of the House
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 7 April—General debate on justice and home affairs.
Tuesday 8 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 9 April—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Thursday 10 April—Statement on the publication of the 13th report from the Public Administration Select Committee entitled “Caught red-handed: Why we can’t count on Police Recorded Crime statistics”, followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The Select Committee statement and the subject for debate were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 11 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 28 April will include:
Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the High Speed Rail (London-West Midlands) Bill.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 10 April will be:
Thursday 10 April—Debate on police response to domestic violence.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I know that this Government aspire to shrink the state to pre-war levels and take us back to Victorian times, but do we really have to endure the return of London smogs? The chief medical officer has recognised air pollution as one of the top 10 health risk factors in the country. We all know there is little we can do about sand from the Sahara, but will the Leader of the House tell us what steps the Government will take to tackle the UK’s contribution to this problem?
As the much delayed and barely anticipated Queen’s Speech begins to loom closer, may I ask the Leader of the House about reports that the Government failed to consult the Queen about her most convenient date for the state opening and plumped for 3 June, despite a clash with the Buckingham palace garden party? One would think that with all the spare time this zombie Government have at their disposal, they would at least have been able to put it off for a day, but I have found the reason for their inflexibility—4 June is Eton founders day, so half the Cabinet would be unavailable. Given that the Government are so desperate for business that they have had to announce a general debate on Monday, will the Leader of the House confirm what we all know and admit that Prorogation will come sooner rather than later?
Yesterday we learned that the Prime Minister believes that he meets a better class of engaged and talkative shopper at Waitrose. As someone who holds an advice surgery in Asda, may I tell the Prime Minister that his snobbery is out of touch and misplaced?
I do not know whether the Saharan dust cloud is responsible for clogging up the machinery of government, but this week has been remarkable for the sheer scale of the incompetence emerging after this Government’s four years in charge. On Monday, we learned that the Government have got only 3,780 people into their flagship universal credit scheme, which was sold as a way of transforming the lives of people on benefits. That is 0.3% of the 1 million people the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was aiming for by now. So far, £140 million of public money has been written off, each user of the scheme has cost taxpayers an incredible £160,000 and £34 million has been wasted on IT systems that do not work. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House and explain why his Department is in complete and utter chaos, and why he is letting down vulnerable people as a consequence?
The Work and Pensions Committee published a report on Wednesday, which reveals that the bedroom tax is causing disabled people
“severe financial hardship and distress”.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), the Minister responsible for the tax, claimed that it was saving money, but she has now been forced to admit that it is not saving anything.
The Liberal Democrat president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), then issued a cynically choreographed announcement that the Liberal Democrats no longer support the bedroom tax. That is odd because, as the bedroom tax has made its way through this House, he has behaved like a true Liberal Democrat: as Liberal Democrat president, he has voted for it; he has abstained on it; and he has voted against it. Will the Leader of the House organise a debate and a vote in this House in Government time so that we can see what on earth the Liberal Democrat president and his party are going to do next?
The National Audit Office delivered a damning verdict this week on the Royal Mail fire sale, which has left the taxpayer short-changed by hundreds of millions of pounds and given a whole new meaning to the phrase “Cable theft”. It is so indefensible that one Conservative MP has described it has described it as a “debacle”, “unethical” and “immoral”. Despite the Prime Minister’s feeble efforts to defend the indefensible yesterday, if someone takes something worth £3.4 billion from us and sells it for £2 billion, it is fairly obvious that we are not getting a good deal.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable to say whether a gentleman’s agreement was reached with the so-called long-term investors, who actually cashed in their shares within weeks and made millions. Since the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has refused to answer, will the Leader of the House now tell us who the 16 priority investors selected by the Government are, whether any of them are Tory donors, and whether the Government will publish any correspondence? The country has a right to know.
With all the incompetence this week, it seems appropriate that we had April fool’s day. Some of the fake articles almost fooled me. I almost believed that Piers Morgan was the new press adviser to the Liberal Democrats, and I was taken in by the idea that Alex Salmond would want his face on a new Scottish pound coin; but I could not believe that the Chancellor’s best man made £36 million from the Royal Mail fire sale until I found out that it is actually true. How is that for a mate’s rate?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement.
The hon. Lady accuses us of shrinking the state. What we are doing is trying to live within our means, which is a perfectly reasonable proposition. As it happens, we are taking Government spending back to about its level in 2004; it is nothing like as apocalyptic as she would have us believe. In truth, having inherited the largest deficit of the G8, it is necessary. It is part of what our long-term economic plan will achieve: it will reduce the deficit and, as a consequence, we will be able to have stronger economic growth to create more jobs and live within our means, including by capping the welfare budget.
I note that, having voted for the welfare cap, all we hear—once again—from Labour Members is that they do not believe in it, that they would vote against it and that they are against the measures within it. Frankly, they also now appear to be against universal credit, which will have the most positive characteristics of being able to support those people whose needs are greatest and to provide additional resources, not least to those on low incomes with children. It is being delivered carefully. We are seeing where the issues lie and dealing with them.
For the shadow Leader of the House to castigate the Department for Work and Pensions again this week is astonishing, when one considers that it is presiding over the most far-reaching and positive pension reforms that anybody here has seen in their lifetime, and that it has presided over an increase in employment of 1.3 million people and an increase in private sector employment of 1.7 million people since the election.
The shadow Leader of the House asked about the reports on the spare room subsidy over the past week. Interestingly, much of the analysis showed flaws and inaccuracies in the BBC data. Frankly, if the Government had published the data behind the BBC’s announcement and had tried to make arguments on that basis, we would have been castigated. It would be best if it went back and did its numbers again.
The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Queen’s Speech and the date of Prorogation. As is customary for all Governments, the date of the Queen’s Speech is announced following full consultation with the palace. The date of Prorogation will be announced in due course and will be subject to the progress of business.
On shops, the Prime Minister, like all of us, visits various retailers in his constituency. There was a Waitrose in my constituency, but it got shuffled out of it in the boundary changes before the last election. I tend to get accosted in all the shops I visit, wherever I go, in a very positive fashion.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend do the Tesco price match?
Mr Lansley
I visit the Tesco in my constituency at Bar Hill. When I visited Tesco as a new Member of Parliament—happily this does not happen these days—I was accosted by a shopper on the grounds that she recognised me. However, she thought that she recognised me as the manager because I was the only person there in a suit, and that I would therefore know where she could find her washing powder. Hey ho, things have got better.
On the issue of smog, we are hardly returning to Victorian times. Crikey, I remember being a boy in the east end and not being able to see the pavement as I walked to school because of the smog in the 1960s. It was, of course, a Conservative Government who introduced the Clean Air Acts to clear up that pollution. The UK meets the EU limits in this regard. However, as we have seen this week, a combination of events can still result in high levels of air pollution. We are investing heavily in measures to reduce emissions, in particular from transport. More than £2 billion of measures have been announced since 2011. Johnson Matthey, which is based next to my constituency and at which many of my constituents work, produces some of the leading catalytic converters. We should be proud of this country’s achievements in producing technology that enables us to reduce emissions. It is important that we achieve that.
The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Royal Mail sale. I am afraid that she was wrong again. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills responded on Tuesday to the shadow Secretary of State. She has not caught up with that reply to his questions. I will repeat what the Secretary of State said yesterday in response to the question about a gentleman’s agreement, for her benefit and for the benefit of the House:
“More than 500 would-be investors in Royal Mail were approached in the lead-up to the sale. A number of long-term institutional investors who knew the company gave us the confidence to press ahead”
with the initial public offering
“and were some of the larger investors on day one. This is standard practice for any flotation. We did not seek to lock them in as they would have paid less for a stock they could not trade. And there were no meetings between”
Ministers or officials and these investors. He said:
“There was no agreement, gentleman’s or otherwise.”
I note that the hon. Lady has not asked for a debate on some of the most positive things that have happened this week. The Opposition voted against the Finance Bill, but I thought that they might have had the good grace to acknowledge that one of the consequences of this Government’s policies is that the income tax-free personal allowance is going up to £10,000. That will take another 200,000 people out of paying tax altogether, and be worth £705 to some people. Fuel duty is now frozen again, and is 20p per litre lower than it would have been under the previous Labour Government’s escalator plans. This weekend sees the introduction of the employment allowance, which is £2,000 off the cost of national insurance for nearly 1.5 million employers across the country. That will further stimulate the business of this country to create the jobs that give people the greatest confidence and security for the future.
Mr Speaker
Order. As usual, a large number of right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. The House will know that my almost unfailing practice is to seek to accommodate everybody and call every Member at Business questions, but I remind the House that there are two Government statements to follow, a Select Committee statement and then two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. There is therefore a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike, and dependent on that we might, or might not, be able on this occasion to accommodate everybody. We will be led, I hope, with style and aplomb by Mrs Cheryl Gillan.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Leader of the House carefully stopped his business announcement on 28 April with the Second Reading of the hybrid Bill on High Speed 2. I am sure that he and the usual channels would not want to short-change Members of this House or our constituents, so I am asking for a second day’s debate on 29 April. So many people’s lives, homes and livelihoods are affected, so much environment is damaged and there is such a high risk with this project, that the House deserves two days’ debate on Second Reading of this Bill.
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I would never short-change the House, but I have announced the business up to and including 28 April, and that is as far as business can be announced at this stage.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report from the university of Bristol about the high level of mortality among people with learning disabilities. Is he aware of the disappointment of those who attended the NHS conference on Friday about the lack of substance and clarity over funding? May we have that issue clarified, and have the kind of debate that has already happened in another place?
Mr Lansley
If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to respond to the right hon. Gentleman about that, but from my recollection of when I was at that Department, our approach was to protect resources available for learning disabilities through local authorities. That made a big difference at a time when local authorities were otherwise having to make considerable reductions in spending.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is aware that Manston airport in my constituency is threatened with closure after fewer than four months of a promised two years under its present ownership. Manston is a planned search and rescue facility, and a major diversion field: only this week, a jet destined for Heathrow and running short of fuel had to be diverted to Manston. I am still hopeful that with good will it may be possible to secure a buyer prepared to keep the airport open, and if Manston does close I shall wish to raise the background to the matter in an Adjournment debate. In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that the Government gives consideration to how the predatory disposal of national assets with security implications might be averted?
Mr Lansley
I am sure the House will completely understand and indeed endorse my hon. Friend’s view of the importance of regional airports—in this instance Manston—in his constituency and in other neighbouring constituencies across Kent, and Thanet in particular. As he knows, my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport are well aware of the issue, and in addition to what he said about the desirability of a debate in the House, I know that they will want to keep in touch with him and with the owners and operators out of Manston airport, recognising all the while that it is a commercial matter, but that the importance they attach to regional airports is undiminished.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
My constituent, Miss Perry, of Gracehill in Ballymena, recently received her house insurance premium, which is double what it was last year, and she was told by the insurance company that that is a direct result of the floods that affected England. Although those floods were terrible and awful, and thank God they did not affect Northern Ireland to the same extent, is it appropriate that premiums should be increased by that amount in Northern Ireland, and may we have a debate on the matter?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will understand that by its nature insurance is a pool of risk. The insurer to whom one goes, depending on the parameters of the insurance offer, will sometimes pool risk across very large populations and very big geographical areas. The Government do not interfere with the commercial operation of insurance markets, but the Water Bill, which has just completed its consideration in the House of Lords, will ensure that people can continue to have access to flood insurance. Flood Re, as a reinsurance mechanism to back that up, is very important, but it does not in itself reduce insurance overall. The £10 addition across all insurance premiums is necessary to meet the costs of Flood Re.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
You very kindly granted me a recent debate in Westminster Hall, Mr Speaker, on the tragic death of my late constituent, Eystna Blunnie, and her unborn baby Rose, who were brutally beaten and killed by her ex-partner. This terrible crime left the whole of Harlow in shock. Since then, a domestic homicide review has been carried out and is due to be published soon. It will be anonymised, despite the parents’ wish for their daughter and her child to be named. May we have a statement, and will my right hon. Friend speak urgently to the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary on this issue?
Mr Lansley
I am aware of the tragic murder of Eystna Blunnie just days before she was due to give birth to her baby girl Rose in 2012. On behalf of the House, and for myself, I would like to take the opportunity, through my hon. Friend, to offer our condolences to Eystna’s family on their loss.
My hon. Friend will know that in April 2011 the Government placed domestic homicide reviews on a statutory footing, so that every local report into a domestic homicide is reviewed and quality assured by a panel of independent and Home Office experts. Each review results in a tailored action plan delivered by the area in question to ensure that we learn and act on the lessons of individual tragedies. I understand that a domestic homicide review of this case is under way and will be published by the community safety partnership in coming months. For reasons of data protection, such reviews are anonymised to protect the identity of all involved, including the victims and their families. I will, as my hon. Friend requests, raise the issues he has raised with my right hon. Friends at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Last week, 45 members of staff at Hull’s office of the official receiver were told, after a three-week review, that the office was to close, and that all the jobs would be moved to Leeds in October. That will mean a loss to the economy in Hull of about £1 million, on top of the other cuts we have suffered recently. Hull has been trying very hard to regenerate the city. May we have a debate on why, when we are taking two steps forward, the coalition Government seem to be taking us one step back?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Lady often comes to the House to offer good news from Hull, the city of culture and renewable energy investment, so I am sorry that on this occasion she feels that there is bad news. I do not know the circumstances in detail. I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends to look at the issue she raises and to respond to her, but she will understand that, when we are realising efficiencies in resources, there will sometimes be necessary and inevitable changes in public services.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
The Leader of the House, as a former Secretary of State for Health, will be aware of the problems facing minor injuries units. Minehead community hospital in my constituency is having problems in recruiting and in improving ambulance response times. Nearly 300 people, who are worried about the future of Minehead’s minor injuries unit, attended a public meeting this week. May we have a statement on all Somerset hospitals that are suffering from the same problem? There seems to be a funding issue at the very highest level.
Mr Lansley
The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) is on the Front Bench and will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. I completely understand. One of the objectives in devolving commissioning responsibilities to the local level, in my hon. Friend’s area and others across the country, is to allow a practical appreciation of the benefit of recruitment and retention of minor injuries units, because such units reduce demand on accident and emergency units and ambulance services. I will, of course, ask my hon. Friends to reply specifically on the issues in Somerset.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Leader of the House has had an opportunity this week to read a report from StreetGames about the lack of physical activity among young people in particular. It precedes a report from the All-Party Commission on Physical Activity, which will be published next week and presented to the Prime Minister. Will the Leader of the House have a chance to talk to his colleagues in other Departments to establish how the Government can best respond to what is, I am afraid, a crisis?
Mr Lansley
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue. I confess that I have not read the whole report, but I did see the press reports, which I found very interesting. I know, because of my former responsibilities, that the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and others have been working together to try to stimulate physical activity. I was specifically involved in the Department of Health’s support for the Change4Life sports clubs in secondary schools, which began under the last Government but has been extended to primary schools under this one. That should give young people the opportunity to become involved in games through their schools, but of course it is also vital for us to give them further opportunities by supporting local community clubs.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s success so far in creating extra private sector jobs which have increased the number of people in employment to 30 million. I also salute the Chancellor’s commitment to full employment. May we have a debate about the need for increased productivity to tackle both our need to export more and the cost of living? Productivity is the key, as well as full employment.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is, of course, right. One of the most interesting aspects of recent years is that, notwithstanding assertions—not least by the Labour party—that the flexible labour markets that are so important to our economic prosperity would simply enable employers to lay people off, it is because we have flexible labour markets that employers have felt confident enough to take people on. What we need to do now is build productivity in those markets, and that depends on business investment. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s report forecasts strong prospects for business investment, and I believe that the doubling of the investment allowance that was announced in the Budget will enable it to be a strong element of our future economic prosperity.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Yesterday, following a resolution passed by its city council, Sheffield became the first city in the United Kingdom to support calls for the international recognition of Somaliland. Since 1991, the people of Somaliland have made great progress in establishing a stable country with a freely elected Parliament and an independent judiciary. May we have a debate on how the British Government can do more to use their influence in the international community in order to secure recognition of Somaliland?
Mr Lansley
I am, of course, aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He may have an opportunity to raise it with Ministers during Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions next Tuesday, and also with other Members who may be interested in Somaliland and Somalia, and, in particular, may welcome the progress that Somaliland has made in recent years.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May we have a debate on how councils spend taxpayers’ money? Having cut its care budget by £10 million, Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council has just squandered £1.2 million on a failed supermarket bid. Does the Leader of the House agree that there may be a case for an investigation by local district auditors of this squandering of taxpayers’ money?
Mr Lansley
It is always important for auditors to ensure that councils get value for taxpayers’ money when they spend it. I entirely share my hon. Friend’s desire to see councils focus on how they can maintain the services that local people need most, and care services are often pre-eminent in that regard. Our better care fund, which begins in the current financial year, will provide £3.8 billion for care through local authorities, but, like the rest of us, those authorities must also find ways in which to save money. The Department for Communities and Local Government has published “50 ways to save”, which explains how responsible authorities can save money while also prioritising front-line services.
Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Post Office card account is greatly valued by its users on benefits, particularly pensioners, and it is a vital support to the network of post offices across the country, but once again it seems to be under threat. Yesterday the Prime Minister seemed a little nonplussed when asked about this by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), although he promised to look carefully at what she had said. May we have a statement so that pensioners and Post Office workers, sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses can be reassured about the long-term future of the Post Office card?
Mr Lansley
I thought the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday was very straightforward and clear: there is not a threat to the Post Office card account, and it is simply a question of the negotiation of the future contract.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
At one of the public meetings I regularly hold in my constituency, and indeed again at last night’s Mill Hill Preservation Society meeting, I was asked about step-free access at Mill Hill Broadway, a station on the Thameslink line that is a direct connection to London and is used by many of my elderly and disabled constituents. May we have a Minister come to the Dispatch Box to explain how the Government are ensuring that more and more train stations across the country are becoming step-free?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that many Members will rightly share his feeling that we should enable people who have difficulties with access and steps to have step-free access to stations. It is a major task, but happily the scale of Network Rail’s future investment programme is going to enable significant improvements to be made. If he has particular stations in his constituency in mind, I will get in touch with him and make sure my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport respond in relation to Network Rail’s plans.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Treasury has creamed off in excess of £5 billion from the coal industry pension schemes. May we have a debate to discuss how the Government can best invest the miners’ own money and the continuation of the British coal industry—and perhaps the development and expansion of it as well?
Mr Lansley
I know the hon. Gentleman was in his place during Energy and Climate Change questions just now when these issues properly were raised. I cannot endorse the point he makes. It is important for people to be aware of the fact that the pension fund for any set of employees is designed to give them the maximum financial security in their old age. It is not intended necessarily to be an investment to be used simply in relation to their existing employment. Considerable risks are associated with that. None the less, these are matters for the trustees of any individual pension fund, but as he has raised these issues I will raise them once again with my hon. Friends at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who are in continuing discussions with the trade unions and the businesses concerned.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
As we heard yesterday, Visteon pensioners have announced that they and Ford have agreed in principle a multi-million pound deal to settle claims for pension losses suffered by former employees. Since my election, I, the Visteon pensioners and the all-party group on Visteon pensioners in their support—and with your co-operation, Mr Speaker, which I am grateful for—have been fighting for justice. Will my right hon. Friend therefore consider holding a debate that will enable interested Members to celebrate this great result, thank Ford for finally doing the right thing and, of course, congratulate Visteon pensioners on their dogged determination and, hopefully, delivering the justice they so rightly deserve?
Mr Lansley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question, and it allows us further to reinforce the point my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made about paying tribute to those who have campaigned and welcoming what has been offered now by Ford. I particularly pay tribute to my hon. Friend for leading the debate on 12 December last year on these issues. It is something of a novelty to be invited to have a debate not in order to ask for something, but to celebrate that something that has been asked for has been achieved. It leads us into new and happier territory for debates in this House. I cannot immediately promise that, but it is an engaging thought.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the Royal Mail sell-off? Notwithstanding the Leader of the House’s earlier remarks, the National Audit Office has disclosed that 12 priority investors sold their shares within weeks for a fast buck. If that is true, we need to know the names of the investors and the full details of the transactions, so that we can work out whether the taxpayer has been ripped off.
Mr Lansley
I answered a question from the shadow Leader of the House on that subject earlier. So far as a debate is concerned, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills answered questions fully and effectively—rather more effectively than the shadow Secretary of State—when he made a statement on the matter earlier this week.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The population of the United Kingdom is 62.3 million. If it is not to rise to 70 million, net migration will have to be cut to 40,000 a year. The coalition Government have successfully cut non-EU immigration from 217,000 a year to 140,000, but Migration Watch has predicted this week that 100,000 people will come to our shores annually from the European Union. That means that our population will be heading towards 70 million-plus, and that the Conservatives’ commitment to cut immigration to tens of thousands will not be met. May we have an urgent debate on the Floor of the House about how the Government are going to get their immigration policy back on track?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This Government have taken significant steps that have reduced net non-European economic area migration into this country. Additionally, we have taken steps through regulation to reduce the incentives for others across the European Union to come to this country unless they are coming here to work. We will be able to do more, however, not least because of our party’s commitment to the achievement of a further renegotiation in Europe, and there are others across Europe who share our belief that the free movement of labour should relate only to work and not to benefits. As a consequence of such renegotiations, we would be able further to reduce the incentives for people to migrate between countries without being part of a successful economy. On the question of a debate, I remind my hon. Friend that amendments to the Immigration Bill will arrive here in due course from the House of Lords. That might afford an opportunity for debate on these matters.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The transition to a low carbon economy provides a huge opportunity for the UK to be a major source of jobs and growth, of which areas such as the north-east very much want their fair share. According to figures from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, however, investment in clean energy in the UK is due to hit a five-year low this year. May we have a debate to find out why that is happening?
Mr Lansley
I do not have the figures in front of me, but my recollection is that 14 major contracts for new energy investment are in prospect over the next 15 years. We are world leaders in offshore wind energy, and we now have some of the greatest prospects for investment in energy, not least as a consequence of the capacity market reforms in the Energy Act 2013, which will give investors the opportunity to come in and make their investments, confident about the nature of the market in the years to come.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) has said. Did I just detect a hint that the Leader of the House was encouraging Back Benchers to amend the Immigration Bill to restrict immigration from the European Union? If so, may we have a statement from the Leader of the House next week to celebrate that fact?
Mr Lansley
I think what I said was that, in so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) wished to have an opportunity to debate those matters—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) agrees with him on that—the Immigration Bill will take us further in the direction of ensuring that there are no incentives for people to come here without good reasons or without the prospect of work. I am not encouraging amendment to the Bill as such, because a number of useful amendments are being made in the House of Lords. When the Lords amendments come back to this House, however, we will have an opportunity for that debate.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Given that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) has just confirmed to the House that two of the last three deep mines are to close, and that a seismic survey last week revealed 23 trillion tonnes of coal in 20 seams under the North sea, would it not be opportune to have a debate about the role of coal in a diverse energy supply?
Mr Lansley
Of course I cannot promise an immediate debate on that. Securing our energy supply in a manner that enables us to meet our decarbonisation objectives is a proper and continuous source of debate, and I know there will be further debates on it. What I think the Minister of State was saying from the Dispatch Box was that he is thoroughly engaged with the company and the trade unions, and has been for some time, in considering the consequences of the prospective closures.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for regular debates on whether we should stay in or leave the European Union? Will he insist that the Deputy Prime Minister participates in each of those debates? Now that Nigel Farage has, unsurprisingly, twice wiped the floor with the Deputy Prime Minister on this issue, is it not clear that the more people hear the debate and the arguments about whether we should be in or out, the more likely they are to conclude that we should be out? It is equally clear that those who want to stay in are relying on dodgy figures, desperate scaremongering and personal, cheap insults.
Mr Lansley
It will not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I believe we should have a debate in this country about our future relationship with the European Union, but that we should have it once we have had the opportunity that only a Conservative victory at the next general election would afford us: to have both a renegotiation of our relationship with our partners, with that mandate behind us, and the mandate for a referendum in the next Parliament. That gives force to such a debate. In the absence of a referendum, there is no force to this debate.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Ofsted reports today that too many nurseries in England are failing to ensure that children are in a position to learn when they get to primary school. Worse, Sir Michael Wilshaw says that children from the poorest backgrounds are especially badly served, with only a third reaching a good level of pre-school development. May we have a statement on this damning indictment of the Government’s early years record, which is failing?
Mr Lansley
I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman characterise these things in that misplaced way. What they are is an endorsement of our determination to improve early years education, not least to enable primary schools across this country to have more teacher-led and education-driven—standards-driven—early years education. In that sense, they are very supportive of what we set out to do. Across the House we should be very clear that, as I know from my former public health responsibilities, whether children are school ready when they first go to school is one of the central measures of long-term prospective outcomes for children. We need to focus on that, and I hope the Ofsted report will enable us to do so.
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
May I associate myself with calls for a second day to debate the HS2 Bill on Second Reading? May I also ask the Leader of the House for a debate on university technical colleges, which are a tremendous way for young people to gain the industry-specific skills they need? Will he encourage Jaguar Land Rover and JCB to co-sponsor a midlands UTC, so that the midlands and Tamworth remain the home of the manufacturing sector?
Mr Lansley
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming that university technical college, and the support of JCB and others for it. I know that we are now talking about some 45 UTCs across the country. What is so compelling about them as a thought is that not only are they focused on giving young people the opportunity to have access to vocational qualifications in an abstract sense, but they are focused in given areas on knowledge of where those skills will be taken up by local employers. That gives tremendous confidence to young people going to UTCs.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I am sure the Leader of the House would agree that the matters being investigated by Ofsted in certain Birmingham schools are deeply worrying. Will he ensure that the Ofsted and Birmingham reports are published swiftly, and that thereafter there is a swift statement to this House?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman is of course right, and Members across the House will share his concerns about the timeliness of the matter. I will, in consultation with my hon. Friends at the Department for Education, ensure that the House is informed as soon as possible, subject of course to the inquiry being carried out thoroughly.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Leader of the House will know that, a couple of days ago, the House agreed, without a Division, a programme motion for the Finance Bill. I had originally thought that that was a good idea, but having listened to him this morning, I think that perhaps another day’s debate would serve to remind the House that the Opposition voted against all of our excellent tax changes—our tax cut for working people and the freezing of fuel duty. An extra day’s debate to remind the British public of that might be a good use of this House’s time.
Mr Lansley
Well, my hon. Friend tempts me. Two days, as the programme motion specifies, is the right answer for the time being. Of course if we were able to go beyond that, it would allow us to find out what it was specifically that the Labour party objected to that caused it to vote against the Finance Bill. Otherwise, we will have to tell the British public that it is against the increase in the personal tax allowance, against the reduction in corporation tax for businesses and, I am afraid, against the long-term economic plan that is delivering for the people of this country.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
In the context of raising the participation age, may we have a debate on whether it is still appropriate for 16 to 18-year-old learners to be funded 22% less than pre-16 learners?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister for Schools has answered that question on a number of occasions. It relates of course to the necessity of managing within budgets for those who are of that age in that sector. As he raises it again, I will ask my hon. Friends to return to him with any additional information that they can give him.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
May we have a debate on the 50th report of the Public Accounts Committee on the rural broadband programme? It is a totally successful programme, but there are issues with British Telecom, exemplified in my constituency by it leaving out villages such as Glasson Dock in pursuance of attempting to box in the only other operator in the area, Broadband for the Rural North, which is a social enterprise and a not-for-profit organisation.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend might find it useful to note that there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 8 April entitled, “Broadband and the north of England” in which he may have an opportunity to expand on some of his important points. It is widely recognised among Members that while we are making tremendous progress on broadband coverage— 10,000 additional homes per week—we are all focused on trying to ensure that people do not get left behind.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leader of the House might know that I am a Labour/Co-operative Member of Parliament. Did he see last night’s BBC “Newsnight” programme in which there were shocking revelations about the pressure that the Treasury, the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills put on the Co-op and the Co-op bank to take certain measures that destabilised the Co-op bank, which has a proud tradition of being a very different bank?
Mr Lansley
I did not see that programme, so I cannot comment directly on what the hon. Gentleman alleges. My recollection is that the Treasury Committee is continuing to undertake an inquiry into the Co-operative bank. It is not for me to refer such matters, but he might like to refer any information he has to that Committee.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May I add to the call that was made a few minutes ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for a debate on the UK’s set position in the European Union? Next Tuesday will see the announcement of the winner of the €100,000 “Brexit” prize, which is organised by the Institute of Economic Affairs. We have seen debates on the television and in the think-tanks. It seems bizarre to the public that this House is not debating what life would be like for the UK outside the EU. We should have an urgent debate before the European elections.
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend asks for a debate before the European elections, but it seems to me that the European elections are about who we send to the European Parliament. The debate between now and the European parliamentary elections should be about sending Conservative Members of the European Parliament, as we have in the past and will again in the future, who will go there and fight for British interests, vote against measures that are not in this country’s interests and promote competitiveness and deregulation in the European Union. That is what the European parliamentary election is about. At the same time, we might have a further opportunity in the course of the next Session in this House to debate through a private Member’s Bill how the people of this country can have their say in a referendum. That is a critical issue in getting such a debate to happen.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust is bidding for foundation trust status so that it can take advantage of the Government’s hospital closure programme and sell off half of Charing Cross and Saint Mary’s hospitals, which the people who pay for the NHS, my constituents, do not want. May we have a debate on NHS land sales, and may we have it before 22 May and the local elections? Since Labour made this an election issue, the decision to close Charing Cross has unaccountably been put back to the week after the poll.
Mr Lansley
One might imagine on hearing the hon. Gentleman that foundation trust status had been introduced by this Government when, of course, it was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It certainly gives freedoms but, as it happens, it does not give a trust any greater freedom to sell property than it would have as an NHS trust. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman’s description of the purposes of acquiring foundation trust status does not match up with what Imperial College Healthcare itself believes. Many other trusts, including Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust in my constituency, have used their freedoms to enable them to invest in additional capital, including new buildings, to improve the quality of the service they provide for patients.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Roslyn Earle has been forced out of her flooded home because her insurance was placed with an Icelandic company that had its licence withdrawn at the point at which she made the claim. May we have a statement from the relevant Minister about how the Government will address such issues and ensure that my constituent can get the payout she thought she had paid for and she clearly deserves?
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend rightly raises his constituent’s concerns and I am sure that people share them, but individual cases are not matters that Ministers can engage with directly. We have created a proper framework through the Prudential Regulation Authority for the regulation of institutions that accept deposits or effect insurance contracts. The PRA is fully operationally independent in carrying out those statutory responsibilities, so, if I may, I will ask it to write to my hon. Friend on this matter.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
As part of its bid for part of the £2 billion local growth fund, the Leeds city partnership has produced an excellent video in which it highlights that it is the second largest economy in the UK, with 106,000 businesses, the largest manufacturing base in the UK and eight universities, and that it has the drive, confidence and ambition needed to help rebalance our economy. May we have a debate on the local growth fund to highlight such excellent work aimed at rebuilding our economy?
Mr Lansley
I am glad that my hon. Friend raises that issue, which is important. I remember—this is going back 30 years—that when others were bemoaning the loss of manufacturing and economic changes, Leeds simply said that those things were changing and that it would therefore become a city focused on the development of financial services. That process was Leeds-led, not imposed from outside. The point of the Government’s work with local enterprise partnerships and local authorities is to enable exactly that kind of local leadership to define a strategy for each area. The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is responsible for cities and the constitution, is leading negotiations with all the local enterprise partnerships between now and July with a view to signing a growth deal with each one, including a share of the local growth fund for projects that will start from April of next year. I am confident that the Leeds city region will be prominent in those deals.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Last week the European Commission finally approved the Government’s plan to offer tax relief to video games producers in the UK. This relief will provide a huge boost for the industry, especially the many games industries based in Silicon Spa in my constituency. May we have a debate on the contribution of the creative industries to the wider economy?
Mr Lansley
I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I know that one would be useful because it would allow us to highlight exactly what my hon. Friend refers to, which is a great success story for this country, with the creative industries exporting £15.5 billion in 2011—some 8% of total UK service exports—accounting for 1.68 million jobs and more than £70 billion of output: more than 5% of the whole UK economy. It is not just large but highly competitive, and it has a comparative advantage in this country. It is one of the sectors where that is increasingly true, and it is our job to create the framework for it to succeed in the future.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
You, Mr Speaker, will know that the Government Whips Office normally operates like a well-oiled machine, yet on this occasion it appears that the Whips believe that there is no interest in HS2 and Second Reading can be held on just one day, even though 40 Members of Parliament will be affected by HS2, it will cost £50 billion and many Members of the House are both for and against it. Can you pass on to the Government Chief Whip that that is not the case, that many Members of Parliament want to speak both for and against HS2 and that it will require at least two days for Second Reading?
Mr Speaker
Order. I simply note in passing that the hon. Gentleman may believe that the halcyon days were when he was a member of that Office. I know not.
Mr Lansley
I have to tell my hon. Friend that the efficiency and effectiveness of the Whips Office is undiminished. The Whips will have heard what he had to say. For my part, I have announced the business up to and including Monday 28 April, and I will announce the business beyond that day in due course.
Tobacco Products (Standardised Packaging)
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the publication of Sir Cyril Chantler’s report on the standardised packaging of tobacco products.
Smoking kills nearly 80,000 people each year in England alone. One out of two long-term smokers will die of a smoking-related disease and our cancer outcomes stubbornly lag behind those of much of Europe. Quite apart from the enormous pressure that this creates for the NHS, it is a cruel waste of human potential. Yet we know that the vast majority of smokers want to quit, and we also know that, tragically, two thirds of smokers become addicted before they are 18. As a nation, therefore, we should consider every effective measure we can to stop children taking up smoking in the first place.
That is why, in November last year, I asked Sir Cyril Chantler to undertake an independent review of whether the introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco is likely to have an effect on public health, in particular in relation to children. Sir Cyril has presented his report to me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and yesterday we had the benefit of a personal briefing from Sir Cyril, in which he highlighted the key conclusions of his review. Having reviewed Sir Cyril’s findings, I was keen to share this important report with the House without delay, as I recognise the significant interest shown by many Members. I will of course place copies in the Libraries of both Houses.
The evidence has been examined, the arguments for and against have been thoroughly explored and their merit assessed by Sir Cyril, who visited Australia in the course of the review. I asked in particular that the report focus on the potential of standardised packaging to have an impact on the health of children. It is clear that smoking is a disease of adolescence and we know that across the UK, more than 200,000 children aged between 11 and 15 start smoking every year: in other words, about 600 children start smoking in the UK every day. Many of those children will grow up with a nicotine addiction that they will find extremely difficult to break, and that is a tragedy for those young people, their families and the public health of our nation. Sir Cyril points out that if this rate of smoking by children were reduced by even 2%, it would mean that 4,000 fewer children took up smoking each year.
Sir Cyril’s report makes the compelling case that if standardised packaging were introduced, it would be very likely to have a positive impact on public health, and that the health benefits would include benefits for children. The chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, has read Sir Cyril’s report. She sent me a letter with her initial views in which she said:
“the Chantler review only reinforces my beliefs of the public health gains to be achieved from standardised packaging”.
I have placed copies of Dame Sally’s letter in the Libraries of both Houses.
Importantly, the report highlights that any such policy must be seen in the round, as part of a comprehensive policy of tobacco control measures, and that is exactly how I see the potential of standardised packaging working in this country. In the light of the report and the responses to the previous consultation in 2012, I am minded to proceed with introducing regulations to provide for standardised packaging. However, to ensure that that decision is properly and fully informed, I intend to publish draft regulations, so that what is intended is crystal clear, alongside a final, short consultation in which I will ask in particular for views on anything new that has arisen since the last full public consultation and that is relevant to a final decision on the policy. I will announce details of the content and timing shortly, but I invite those with an interest to start considering any responses they might wish to make now. The House will understand that I want to proceed as swiftly as possible. Parliament gave us the regulation-making powers in the Children and Families Act 2014.
I pay tribute to Sir Cyril and his team for the excellent job they have done in preparing such a thorough analysis of the available evidence on the standardised packaging of tobacco products. I believe that the report will be widely acknowledged for its forensic approach and authoritative conclusions. We want our nation’s children to grow up happy and healthy, and free from the heavy burden of disease that tobacco brings. I commend the statement and Sir Cyril’s report to the House.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for an hour’s advance notice of her statement. May I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to Sir Cyril Chantler and his team for their excellent review? I welcomed some of what the Minister said, but I want to probe her on several issues.
We know that the cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £2.7 billion a year. One in two long-term smokers die prematurely due to smoking-related diseases, and two thirds of adult smokers took up smoking as children. As Sir Cyril says, if we can reduce that figure by even 2%, 4,000 fewer children will take up smoking each year. For that reason, I strongly welcome the fact that Sir Cyril’s review confirms what public health experts have been arguing for some time: standardised packaging makes cigarettes less attractive to young people and could help to save lives.
Sir Cyril’s remit was to consider whether standardised packaging would lead to a decrease in tobacco consumption. Does not the Minister accept that his conclusion is clear that
“standardised packaging would serve to reduce the rate of children taking up smoking”
and could lead to an “important reduction” of uptake and prevalence, and have a “positive impact” on public health? Of course, that is something that all the previous evidence reviews have already shown. Indeed, Sir Cyril says:
“my overall findings are not dissimilar to those of previous reviews.”
Did not the Government’s own systematic review in 2012, which Sir Cyril describes as “extensive” and “authoritative”, conclude that standardised packaging is less appealing than branded packaging, makes health warnings more prominent and refutes the utter falsehood that some brands are healthier than others? All the royal colleges and health experts are united on this and the majority of responses to the Government’s consultation favoured such an approach, so does the Minister finally accept that there is an overwhelming body of evidence in favour of standardised packaging and that there can be no excuse for further delay?
You will know, Mr Speaker, that Labour has long been calling for the immediate introduction of standardised packaging. For every step that we took in government, the tobacco industry adopted a new approach. After we banned advertising, tobacco manufacturers developed increasingly sophisticated marketing devices for their packaging. In the words of Simon Clark of the tobacco-funded lobby group FOREST and the “Hands Off Our Packs!” campaign:
“It’s like showing them a picture of a Lamborghini and a beaten up Ford Escort and saying, ‘Which one do you prefer?’”
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) was Health Secretary, he was clear that the next front in the fight against tobacco should be packaging. The question is why have we had to wait so long? More than 70,000 children will have taken up smoking since the Minister announced the review, and today she has announced yet another consultation. The Government have already had a consultation that reported less than a year ago. What does the hon. Lady expect to change? Let me remind her of the words of the Health Minister in the other place, Earl Howe, who said:
“we will definitely introduce the regulations should the case be made and should we be persuaded of the case that Sir Cyril presents. I hope that I have been clear about that.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 29 January 2014; Vol. 751, c. 1251.]
Why is the Minister now kicking the matter into the long grass? How many more children will take up smoking before this Government make a decision? Does the Minister not accept that it was the clear will of both Houses of Parliament to proceed with standardised packaging, and is this not yet another example of how her Government are caving in to vested interests and standing up for the wrong people?
Jane Ellison
The hon. Lady’s response serves to illustrate the difference between opposition and government. I agree that Sir Cyril has produced a compelling report; I recommended it to the House and urged everybody to take the opportunity to read it. He has made a compelling case on the public health evidence, but to make robust policy in this area it is essential that we follow a careful process. That means we have to look at everything in the round, and we have to give everybody who has a stake in the decision an opportunity to make their case. That is what we will proceed to do. I have drawn the House’s attention in the past to the fact that the Australian Government are still engaged in litigation in this area. We need to proceed in a sensible way, but I could not have given the House a clearer indication of the fact that we are moving at the pace dictated by a sensible and robust policy approach. That is the requirement for making good policy.
I am glad the hon. Lady drew attention to Sir Cyril’s review of the evidence from the Stirling review. He did more than just look at the Stirling review; he commissioned independent academic review of its methodology and concluded that it was robust. That is part of his review. As I said, I urge Members to look at that.
Members will have heard the hon. Lady’s response. I can only say to her that at every stage we have proceeded in a sensible, measured but clear way. We took the regulation-making powers in the Children and Families Act 2014, for which there was a large parliamentary majority. We will publish draft regulations alongside the final short consultation to look at the wider issues, and we will then move as swiftly as possible to a final decision based on all those elements. That gives the House a clear sense of our direction of travel. I want to make sure that, whatever decision the Government finally take, it is robust and one that everyone can have confidence in.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
It is most unfortunate that this statement has been made today, when so few Members who take an interest in these matters are present. The logic of my hon. Friend’s argument is that we should ban tobacco altogether if it does so much damage to our people. I do not believe this is a Conservative measure. It is an example of the nanny state. I see the Secretary of State whispering into my hon. Friend’s ear—I hope he is whispering some sound advice to her. At present 13% of packs sold are illicit, denying the Treasury £3 billion. If the Australian experience is anything to go by, that number is likely to rocket. What does the Minister say to that?
Jane Ellison
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Taking every possible effective measure to stop children smoking is the mark of a sensible state, not a nanny state. I do not think any Member of the House would want any extra child to take up smoking, so every Government should look clearly at any effective policy that can serve to advance the achievement of our ends in that regard. Sir Cyril devotes a significant chapter in his report to illicit tobacco products, and I urge my hon. Friend to read it. Of the arguments in that area, Sir Cyril says, “I am not convinced”.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The House listened with care to the Minister’s statement, and the backlash from her own Back-Benchers was predictable. The medical profession and doughty campaigners such as Action on Smoking and Health will be very glad that we are making progress on this issue. Can she confirm that she will bring forward the regulations before Christmas, so that standardised packaging is a reality before the general election?
Jane Ellison
I welcome the hon. Lady’s response. I know that she, as a former shadow Public Health Minister, takes a great interest in this area. I want to publish the draft regulations this month, alongside the short final consultation. The timetable that the Government are contemplating once a final decision is made should allow us to introduce the measure during this Parliament.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I support my hon. Friend’s measures to reduce the number of young people smoking, but she will not be surprised to hear that I do not support this measure. Only 5% of under-15s smoke, which is the lowest level for a generation. The Government’s anti-smoking measures that are already in place are clearly working. There are smoking cessation classes and posters in the streets and in every publication we pick up; there are television adverts warning people constantly about the health risks of smoking. Nobody in this country smokes in ignorance. The people who smoke make a deliberate choice to do so—they deliberately ignore all the warnings that are made available to them. We also must not forget parental responsibility in this, because parents are responsible for their children’s habits and for how much money they have to spend unsupervised—
Jane Ellison
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for measures that can be effective in preventing children taking up smoking and urge her to read the detail of Sir Cyril’s report, which addresses directly some of the points she raises. She is right to draw attention to the fact that all these measures are taken in the round as part of a wider package of anti-tobacco measures. We are considering standardised packaging against the backdrop of some important steps taken in recent months, not least Parliament voting overwhelmingly for a ban on smoking in cars with children, and we have also brought forward measures to prevent proxy purchasing of tobacco by adults for children.
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the House, but so far it is not obvious to me that we have had questions; we have had what might be described as lengthy volleys of words, which are not quite the same thing. If we can have short questions and short answers, we might have a reasonable chance of making effective progress towards subsequent business. Let us be led in that important mission by Valerie Vaz.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I obviously welcome the Minister’s statement, but given the evidence from Sir Cyril, from Australia and Canada and from the Health Committee, will she update the House on a possible time frame? “Before 2015” is too vague.
Jane Ellison
As I said, I want to publish the draft regulations alongside the short final consultation to look at any final points people want to make about the wider aspects of the policy. It is important that we do that to move forward in a way that is robust and sensible and that shows that we have considered everything in the round. I want to do that this month; then, if we decide to proceed, we will move to give the House a final decision before the summer recess. There is no reason why the legislation could not be brought before the House before the end of this Parliament.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Minister’s nanny state instincts do not come as a great surprise. Can she tell us why she set up the review in the first place? Is it because she was not capable of assessing all the evidence herself and making a decision, or because she had already decided what she wanted to do but did not have the guts to announce it and so wanted to use taxpayers’ money to hide behind a review? Whichever it is, it does not inspire confidence. Such decisions should not be farmed out to someone who is unelected and totally unaccountable.
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend does not surprise me with his response. Ministers will make the final decision following the process I have outlined, having had regard not only to Sir Cyril’s excellent report but to the other matters I have said we will consider. On this, I cannot agree with him. No one is bringing forward measures to ban smoking; rather, we are all now able to show our support for measures that might have the potential to stop children taking up smoking. I cannot believe that he cannot agree with that. The vast majority of the public are with us, and I fear that in this case he is in danger, very rarely, of being an unpopular populist.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Minister is very passionate about these issues, but she needs to recognise that tobacco smuggling costs the taxpayer £2.2 billion every year. It is clear from evidence given by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to the Home Affairs Committee, which is looking at tobacco smuggling, that the data do not exist to support the view that plain packaging will make that much difference. Will she work with the tobacco companies, within her time frame, to make sure that we can track those who use legitimate production for illicit and illegal means? We have to stop illicit smuggling.
Jane Ellison
I welcome those comments by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I know that his Committee is undertaking work on illicit tobacco, and it would be very welcome and helpful if it put its draft report or final evidence into the consultation. If he has not already had the opportunity to do so, I urge him to look at the chapter of the report that Sir Cyril devotes to this matter, which I think he will find of great interest. This is one of the wider issues on which the final short consultation will enable people to put their concerns on record so that they can be weighed in the balance.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I listened very carefully to my hon. Friend’s statement. I am slightly surprised by Labour Members’ response, given that when in government they said that they needed
“strong and convincing evidence of the benefits to health, as well as…workability”.––[Official Report, Health Bill [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 25 June 2009; c. 305.]
Their response was therefore a little churlish. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) made some sensible points on the risks of smuggling. I will look at Sir Cyril’s report carefully, including the section on that subject, before I study the regulations when the decision is put to the House. I thank the Minister for her careful and thorough statement.
Jane Ellison
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The issue is looked at in some detail, and as I said, Sir Cyril said that he was not convinced by the arguments in this respect.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
I came to the House prepared to attack the Minister because I thought she was going to kick this into the long grass. I am absolutely delighted that she has assured the House that she is not going to do that. In the light of the reception from her own Back Benchers, which I am afraid has not been friendly, she can at least be assured of the friendliness from those on the Labour Benches. She is doing exactly the right thing. My father died of lung cancer when I was eight, so I never took up smoking, but many of my friends did. They are now dead and I am still going. What the Minister is doing today will mean that more children will not take up smoking in the first place.
Jane Ellison
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those generous comments. I think that many people in the House will have had their personal family situation touched in the way that he mentions. I never knew my grandparents, so I recognise the power of what he says. We are proceeding, as I hope the House can see, in a sensible but robust way. I have signalled my view that I am minded, as a Health Minister, to accept Sir Cyril’s report and the evidence therein, but there are other considerations, and we will take those into account and bring a final decision to the House as soon as possible.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of the anti-counterfeiting measures that are taken in relation to the current packaging of cigarettes? Is she worried, as I am, that the introduction of plain-paper packaging would remove those measures and thus increase the possibility of counterfeiting and misrepresentation of—let us say—illicit tobacco?
Jane Ellison
The report is not about plain packaging but standardised packaging, which is quite different. Sir Cyril’s report helpfully pulls apart the differences and makes them clear for the reader. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is addressed in the report, and it was given a lot of consideration in the 2012 consultation. I can pay testament to the fact that that was an exhaustive and very thorough consultation, because I have spent much of the past few days, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, reviewing the evidence and submissions to it. These points have therefore been put on the record, but there will be a final opportunity in the forthcoming consultation to make them again, and they will be considered.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
I am a non-smoker and I do not want to see young people smoking, but I have concerns about standardised packaging, for two reasons. One is illicit trade, and I will give evidence on that and perhaps meet the Minister and her colleagues about that illicit trade and its impact on our constituencies. Also, I represent a number of print workers. There is an issue about jobs and the effects on the packaging industry. I hope she will take that into consideration.
Jane Ellison
The hon. Gentleman mentions illicit trade. As I have said a number of times, it is addressed in the report, but there will be other opportunities to discuss that. I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that stopping illicit tobacco coming into the country is the job of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. It has had great success in that regard over recent years. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s point about jobs, we will publish a full impact assessment alongside draft regulations at the same time as the final consultation. Jobs will be one of the issues in that impact assessment.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I strongly support the Minister’s statement and proposals. Does she agree that if 4,000 children a year can be discouraged from taking up smoking there will be a double public health win—not only better health outcomes for those 4,000, but the release of funds for the health treatment of others in their generation for illnesses and disease? Those funds would otherwise have to be used, in time, to treat many of those 4,000 for smoking-related diseases.
Jane Ellison
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. She is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the extent to which we can bear down on smoking and stop people taking it up the first place has a major impact on the sustainability of our health services and will, as she says, free up more resources to be spent on other things. It is a very important health priority. She is also right to allude to the impact of, for example, 4,000 children not taking up smoking. Even a modest impact on a major killer is really important.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
If the Minister is able to get the regulations past her own Back Benchers—and I note that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) failed to declare an interest, as she registered hospitality from Japan Tobacco International on 12 June 2013—when will we see standardised packaging on the shelves? When will that be, should she get the regulations through in the last Session of this Parliament?
Jane Ellison
Once the Government have made a final decision—and in the event that that decision is to proceed and it is approved in this Parliament—there will be a transition period, as there always is with any tobacco regulations. Because we have not yet made a final decision, we have not decided what that period will be, but there would always be a sell-through period—that has been the precedent set in the past. We are not able to be absolutely definite at this point because of that sell-through period, but I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady about previous sell-through periods for similar legislation.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I thank the Minister for making it possible for Back-Bench MPs to go to the Ministry to read the report this morning. That was a great courtesy and was helpful to parliamentary scrutiny. I bring to her attention two points from that report. First, Sir Cyril Chantler notes that it is
“too early to draw definitive conclusions”
from what has happened in Australia. Secondly, in paragraph 4.21, he says that the research that has been done has been based on “stated intentions” and that those are known to be ones that have to be used with care. He says:
“This caution is justified, and to that extent the findings are essentially indirect and ‘speculative’.”
As the Government may be taking away a freedom from the British people, ought they not to be more certain of their ground than they can be of the ground they currently have from Sir Cyril Chantler?
Jane Ellison
The Government are not proposing to take away anyone’s freedom. Our tobacco control measures aim to prevent children from taking up smoking in the first place, which is quite a different thing. On my hon. Friend’s detailed point, Members of Parliament will, like anyone else, be able to make submissions to the final consultation. Once Members have had the chance to read the report thoroughly, any submissions they may wish to make will, of course, be most welcome and they will be considered.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Lady’s statement and although she is right to take into account factors other than the health of the nation that have been raised by hon. Members, will she confirm that her primary consideration in handling this policy will be the health of the nation and that she will drive it through as quickly as possible?
Jane Ellison
I am the Minister for public health and as I said in my statement we are currently minded, based on the compelling evidence to which Sir Cyril alludes in his report, to proceed, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that policy is made in the round.
Jane Ellison
Health is, of course, very important, particularly the health of our nation’s children, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
Given that eight out of 10 people start smoking under the age of 19—in their teens—does the Minister agree that one of the most effective child protection measures we can take is to help them not to start smoking in the first place?
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend is exactly right and I believe that all Members want to see fewer children taking up smoking. I also draw the House’s attention to the fact that the places where children take up smoking are very unevenly distributed. On maintaining the Government’s duty on health inequality, which we have put in statute, measures to prevent young people and children from taking up smoking directly address some key health inequality issues.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Of course, this is not a Conservative statement, because it is evidence-based, prejudice-free and intelligent. Will the Minister add further lustre to her reputation by starting an investigation into the potential danger of electronic cigarettes normalising smoking?
Jane Ellison
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Sir Cyril’s report makes a brief reference to the normalisation issue and I think the hon. Gentleman will be interested to read that. Of course, the Government have moved to ban the selling of e-cigarettes to under-18s—a move that was supported by the e-cigarette industry for the most part.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What evidence is there that young people do not access illegal drugs as much because they are sold in plain packages?
Jane Ellison
I refer my hon. Friend to Sir Cyril’s report, where he will find 30-odd pages of extremely well-argued, authoritative comment by someone who has looked very deeply and widely at the issues over the past few months.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
May I also place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State for making available an early copy of the report so that we could study it? The Minister said that there is compelling evidence, but Sir Cyril Chantler’s report says that he has
“not seen evidence that allows me to quantify the size of the likely impact of standardised packaging”,
other than a “modest” reduction.
Will the Minister now commit to awaiting the outcome of the Home Affairs Committee report on illicit trade, which will be important in determining the impact of the policy? Will she also consider the outcome of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report on illicit trade, which showed that illicit trade is on the increase and is costing this Government billions of pounds a year? Finally, will the Minister have a word with and say something to 1,000 of my constituents who have been put on notice by today’s decision that they are not valued and that their jobs are over because of this Government?
Jane Ellison
I have already said quite a lot about illicit trade. It is mentioned in the report, which the hon. Gentleman has obviously had a chance to look at. He quoted the word “modest” but, as I said just a moment ago, even a modest impact on a major killer is very important. As a Health Minister, I regularly answer parliamentary questions and letters from colleagues throughout the House on issues that affect far fewer children than 4,000 a year. We have spoken privately and exchanged correspondence on the issue of jobs. The impact assessment will reflect on it and the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a submission to the final consultation.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Human nature being what it is, does my hon. Friend not agree that one unintended consequence of hiding cigarettes behind shutters and putting them in standardised packages is that it may only increase the desire of inquisitive children to take up smoking?
Jane Ellison
I urge my hon. Friend to look at the report and to reflect on the fact that anything we can do to discourage children from taking up smoking is likely to have a lifelong effect not only on them, but on their families. I urge him to look at the detail of Sir Cyril Chantler’s report.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I urge the Minister not to be swayed by those lobbying on counterfeiting and packaging, because this is a deadly, addictive drug. Coffin nails are coffin nails whatever packaging they come in. Given the interest in this subject, does she intend to introduce regulations on the Floor of the House to be debated and voted on?
Jane Ellison
It is indeed our intention to put the regulations through the affirmative procedure, so the House will have the opportunity that the hon. Gentleman mentions. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the issue of children and addiction. There are some extremely interesting points about that in Sir Cyril’s report, reflecting academic studies on children and addiction, including the fact that children become addicted at a faster speed than adults.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
I obviously have an interest in this particular area. May I say to those hon. Members who are protesting that if I could arrange for them to come into an operating theatre and see the damage that oral cancer does to people, they might actually change their mind?
Sir Paul Beresford
I am ignoring the interruptions. I am particularly pleased by what the Minister has said and I thank her for it. I encourage her to move this nation ahead first, as I hope she will, rather than to wait for the Australians.
Jane Ellison
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and support. He speaks from a position of knowledge, which is always a good position from which to speak. Sir Cyril and his team visited Australia, and hon. Members can find reflections on the Australian experience to date in the report. We are proceeding on our own timetable, not waiting for the end of Australian litigation on this subject.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
My hon. Friend has made many references to Sir Cyril’s conclusions on illicit tobacco, but what conversations did she have with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the UK Border Force before making this statement? At the port of Tilbury in my constituency, we are waging a war against tobacco smuggling, and my fear is that standardised packaging will make beating it in that war even more difficult.
Jane Ellison
In the course of policy making, HMRC’s views have very much been sought and taken into account, and it will certainly be part of the final consultation. It is fair to put on the record the fact that HMRC has had considerable success in fighting smuggling over recent years. I of course acknowledge my hon. Friend’s concerns, but I urge her to read the report and to understand the connections between price and illicit tobacco, and to read what Sir Cyril says about the information gleaned from Australia and from our own experience.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Since Richard Doll and Bradford Hill’s report in 1950 and the 50-year study of British doctors from 1951 to 2001 by Richard Doll and Richard Peto, we have known that an over-£50-a-week habit, after tax, does no good to anybody at all. As well as talking about standardisation, which may or may not make a difference, will my hon. Friend make plain to those who smoke that they should not smoke in front of someone younger and that they should not be the first person in a group to light up? That way, we can reduce the incidence of smoking, which will also reduce the number of smokers.
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise again the importance that we all place on children not taking up smoking in the first place. Children who start smoking when they are young find it especially difficult to quit. We know that that particularly affects children in more deprived communities, and it often adds to the burden of disease that they carry through their lives.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the House should always pay careful attention to advice from knights like Sir Cyril? Will she confirm that this is a forensic report that is based on the best evidence, and that the Government are approaching the matter entirely on the basis of the best science? Is not the answer to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) that if the Government did not consult properly on the regulations, far from speeding up matters, it would delay them? I assure the hon. Lady that my colleagues in the Temple would be over the road with an application for judicial review before one could say ban on anything.
Jane Ellison
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments. He is in danger of becoming my second favourite knight of the day. I know that he speaks from personal experience. He is right to draw the House’s attention to the need to make policy carefully in this area. That is what we are proceeding to do. He illustrated the point better than I could have done.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I stand in support of the statement. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the action that she has taken. Has she had an opportunity to look at the Australian experience to see how we might reduce the illicit trade in cigarettes and cigarette smuggling?
Jane Ellison
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. There is a significant chapter about illicit trade in the report and there are reflections on the Australian experience throughout it. If the Government’s final decision is to move ahead, we will look to glean everything we can from the Australian experience.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
In November 2009, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) wrote in a letter to the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) that
“no studies have shown that introducing plain packaging of tobacco would cut the number of young people smoking or enable people who want to quit, to do so.”
I would be grateful to hear, because not all of us have had a chance to read the report, what additional studies have led Sir Cyril and my hon. Friend to reach the conclusion that she has set out today?
Jane Ellison
When my hon. Friend has a chance to look at the report, she will see that there have been a number of new reports in recent years. Sir Cyril commissioned an independent academic review that considered not just the Stirling review, which looked at more than 37 academic reviews on the subject, but the supplement to that, which was published in 2013. He concluded that the reviews were very robust. Much of his report is devoted to a scientific and forensic examination of the methodology used in those reviews. I commend it to her.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that 15,000 people die from alcohol-related diseases every year in Britain? The logical extension of what she is proposing is that we put brown paper bags over all alcohol. Does she not agree that Conservatives believe in freedom and that the best way to stop smoking is through education, not by banning things? This measure will have a significant impact not just on smuggling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said, but on small shops and small businesses.
Jane Ellison
First, I must correct my hon. Friend on one thing. The Government are not proposing to ban anything. I made that quite clear. Secondly, alcohol that is enjoyed in moderation does not do people great harm, but there is no way of enjoying tobacco in moderation that does not harm people’s health. Smoking is a completely different subject from all the others that Members seek to link it to. My hon. Friend wrote to me recently to ask what Health Ministers were doing about cancer in Essex. The more we do to bear down on tobacco use among children, the greater our chances of tackling cancer in Essex and elsewhere.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Minister must know that she will never satisfy the health lobby on this issue. It has moved on to the idea of banning smoking for anyone born after the year 2000. Will she confirm that that is not part of her strategy?
Jane Ellison
The Government have a tobacco strategy that has been published. Today, I am presenting a statement about standardised tobacco packaging and nothing else.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
In my constituency the printer Amcor prints more than 5 billion cigarette packets a year and is one of the largest manufacturing companies of its kind in the country. The factory employs 150 local people and there is a manufacturing train of more than 1,000 local people. I support any measures that will reduce smoking among impressionable young people, but when the Minister talks of standardised packaging, is there any chance that after the review is conducted she can talk of “standardised and complex” packaging, to secure those local jobs at Amcor and other printing companies across the country?
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that standardised packaging is complex and far from the plain brown paper packs sometimes portrayed. Sir Cyril mentions that issue and draws a clear distinction in his report. I would welcome my hon. Friend making a submission to the consultation about the impact of this measure on employment in his constituency. That will of course be weighed in the balance, but it is important constantly to remind the House of the enormous economic impact of the burden of disease on our population.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome and support the statement, but what about the 196,000 children a year who take up smoking and who will not desist as a result of this measure? Can my hon. Friend give any feedback on the success of the measures the Government have already introduced in education and other areas to stop children starting to smoke?
Jane Ellison
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the statement and thank him for it. In April next year, tobacco displays will be behind closed doors, and tobacco vending machines have been banned. He will know that a great deal of money and effort has been put into education, and we are starting to see the fruits of that as the number of smokers in our country has dipped below 20% for the first time. The Government are always open to ideas about effective measures that will stop children taking up smoking in the first place, and I am always extremely happy to hear from my hon. Friend about that.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the all-party small shops group has been following this issue with a great deal of interest for some time. Will she ensure that the impact on small shops will not be overlooked in the process she has outlined today, and will she acknowledge the work of independent retailers who already do a tremendous job in preventing the sale of tobacco to young children?
Jane Ellison
As a former retailer, I know only too well that a responsible retailer can play an important role in stopping children who should not be buying cigarettes doing so. Indeed, I alluded to that and gave credit for it when we introduced regulations on proxy purchasing, which I know were welcomed by many small retailers. Retailers gave extensive evidence to the 2012 consultation, and they will be able to give any updated evidence on anything that is new to the final consultation.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for her statement. Will she clarify for the House whether the regulations will be applicable to Wales, and whether she has had the opportunity to raise them with the Welsh Government?
Jane Ellison
We have sought at all times to keep the devolved Administrations aware of progress in this area, and our officials have spoken to officials in those Administrations about the matter. I hope to have the chance to speak to fellow Health Ministers in the next 24 hours, and if we proceed to bring forward the draft regulations, those are the points we will clarify.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that it is already an offence to smoke in public under the age of 16 and to purchase tobacco under the age of 18. Would it be a good start to ensure that the current laws work before we start imposing new ones?
Jane Ellison
The Government are seeking to consider all measures that have an impact on children taking up smoking in the first place, and many of our laws and measures are beginning to bear fruit as smoking is at its lowest ever level in this country. Every child who takes up smoking is one child too many, and I urge Members to read Sir Cyril’s report and examine the evidence and what he says about the pressures on children. When Members have reflected on that, I hope they will join me in supporting any measure that can make an impact in this area.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement and I support sensible evidence-based measures to curb smoking among the very young. However, I seek reassurance from the Minister about mission creep. Does she agree that chocolate, alcohol and sugary drinks are considerably less addictive and do not kill when consumed in moderation, and that the Government should not be looking to extend their remit into areas where we do not need more regulation?
Jane Ellison
Some of the issues to which my hon. Friend alludes have been debated on many occasions in the House. Today’s statement is about standardised tobacco packaging, not about banning anything. It is to consider the potential of this policy to stop children taking up smoking, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister keeps saying that this is not about banning anything, but she is proposing the banning of promotional packaging—that is what she is doing today. Before she does that, will she consider bringing the law in England into line with that in Scotland, where the sale to, purchase by, or possession in public of cigarettes by anyone under the age of 18 is illegal? That is not the case at the moment in England.
Jane Ellison
My hon. Friend draws attention to the Scottish regime, which has regulatory differences to our regime. It is a matter that I consider and that we keep under review. Indeed, where measures have proved to be effective in any jurisdiction, we take great interest in that.
Personal Statement
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement in relation to today’s report. The report resulted from an allegation made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), and the Committee on Standards has dismissed his allegation. The Committee has recommended that I apologise to the House for my attitude to the Commissioner’s inquiries, and I, of course, unreservedly apologise. I fully accept the recommendations of the Committee, and thank it for bringing this matter to an end.
Bovine TB
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on bovine tuberculosis.
Today I am publishing the Government’s strategy for achieving officially TB-free status for England. This disease is the most pressing animal health problem in the UK, and the crisis facing our cattle farmers, their families and communities cannot be overstated. It is a devastating zoonosis that threatens our cattle industry and presents risks to other livestock and wildlife species such as badgers, domestic pets and humans.
In 1979 only 0.01% of British cattle tested as infected. The disease has now spread extensively from infected pockets in the south-west, and the number of new herd breakdowns has doubled every nine years. In the last decade we have slaughtered 314,000 otherwise healthy cattle across Great Britain in our attempt to control the disease. In 2013 more than 6.2 million TB tests were performed in England leading to the slaughter of 26,603 cattle. One quarter of herds in the south-west and the west midlands were placed under movement restrictions at some point, and in the last decade the issue has cost the taxpayer £500 million.
If we do not control TB, the bill will rise to £1 billion over the next decade. It is vital that farmers, vets, non-governmental organisations and politicians work together to free England of TB. The value of this industry is £6.6 billion, and we want to ensure a thriving cattle sector that maintains our countryside, trades internationally and delivers economic growth.
The current surveillance and control scheme is based on the traditional approach applied across Europe: routine skin testing of cattle, removal and slaughter of test reactors combined with post-mortem surveillance at slaughter, and movement controls placed on infected herds. In the absence of a major wildlife reservoir, that approach has been successful in allowing many EU countries and regions to achieve officially TB-free status. The same approach has reduced the spread of the disease in areas where TB is established, but on its own that is not enough.
Where there is a reservoir of disease in wildlife, tackling TB will require long-term solutions and considerable national resolve. We are clear that culling needs to be part of the answer as there is no other satisfactory solution available at the moment. I intend to pursue policies that will reverse the trend well before the end of this decade, so we need a control and eradication strategy with these clear aims at its heart. It must be dynamic, tailored to the sources of disease and the potential for eliminating it. It must adapt as new tools become available.
We must learn the lessons from countries that have succeeded in tackling TB where there has been a reservoir of the disease in wildlife. I have visited Australia, New Zealand, the Republic of Ireland and the USA. The vital lesson I have taken from these countries is the importance of stringent cattle control measures in combination with tackling the primary wildlife reservoir. Their programmes are either led by industry, or delivered by industry and Government working in partnership, with both parties contributing to the cost. We will need to adapt and apply the key elements of others’ eradication strategies to our countryside. However, the common thread is the sustained application of a control programme that addresses infection in cattle and wildlife.
We already have a robust package of cattle measures, which we have steadily strengthened since 2011. Herds in high-risk areas, and on the edges of those areas, must be tested annually; herds in low-risk areas must be tested every four years. We also have slaughterhouse surveillance. Cattle moving from annual testing herds must be tested before they are moved. Where we find TB, we shut down the herd, slaughter the reactor cattle and carry out intensive testing in the herd and the surrounding herds. We continue to tighten our cattle measures. This year, we have reduced subsidy payments for farmers with overdue TB tests, enhanced measures for dealing with persistent breakdowns, and we recently announced a further tightening of pre-movement testing rules as well as new powers to slaughter cattle that cannot be tested.
For the first time our strategy brings together all the tools we need to tackle the disease, including those currently available and those in development, such as a cattle vaccine. It sets targets by which we can measure progress towards achieving officially TB-free status. The strategy will simply not work without addressing the reservoir of TB infection in badgers. The option of using injectable badger vaccine has been available since 2010. However, the evidence shows that about a third of badgers in TB hot-spot areas are infected. The vaccine does not cure them and they continue to spread the disease. We have some evidence that the vaccine provides protection to a proportion of uninfected badgers, but the vaccination needs to be repeated annually, and this presents many practical problems. However, while the injectable vaccine is far from perfect, it may help protect uninfected badgers away from the TB hot spots. That is why I am proposing a scheme for vaccination projects around the edge of the most badly affected parts of the country, in an attempt to create a buffer zone of TB immunity to stop the disease spreading further.
The first year of two four-year culls took place in Gloucestershire and Somerset last autumn. These were pilots designed to test whether the controlled shooting of free-ranging badgers is safe, humane and effective. An independent panel of experts was appointed to assess the pilots. I am extremely grateful for their work. I have today placed the panel’s report, our response to it and our broader strategy in the Library of the House. We have always been clear that there would be lessons to be learned from the first year of these four-year culls. Having read and considered the report, we shall now work to implement the panel’s recommendations.
The panel is confident that controlled shooting, when carried out in accordance with best practice guidance, poses no threat to public safety, even in the presence of local protest. This is an appropriate point to put on record my thanks to the cull companies and contractors who put so much effort into the culls. They went out night after night to battle TB, often in dreadful conditions, and often facing disgraceful intimidation from some of the more extreme protesters.
The pilots showed that, in the majority of cases, shooting was accurate and can be a humane control method with minimal times to death. The panel made a number of key recommendations for improving the overall standards of accuracy and field craft of contractors, including training and assessment. I accept these recommendations and we are working to implement them with Natural England and the cull companies.
On effectiveness, we already know from the figures we made public last year that the culls did not make as much progress as we hoped. This is confirmed by the independent expert panel, which has given its views on why this might have happened. Three of the 10 areas in the badger culling trials between 1998 and 2005 also got off to a slow start, but by the end of the trial they had contributed to a reduction in TB. That is what we expect to happen here, especially after the panel’s recommendations for improving the effectiveness of culling are put into action.
The second year of culling in Gloucestershire and Somerset will start with the panel’s recommended improvements in place. We will work with Natural England and the industry to implement the changes. The cull companies will adapt their operational plans to ensure better consistency of coverage in the cull areas. They will incorporate more extensive training and real-time monitoring of cull effectiveness and humaneness by Natural England. We know that there are many farming communities in other parts of England that want badger culls to help combat TB. I hope they will understand that we need to put these changes into practice before we roll out the culling programme to other areas. I am also announcing a trial of a comprehensive farm-level risk management programme throughout the cull areas over the next three years. This will be available to all farmers, providing bespoke assessments and advice on how to protect their cattle.
I am keen to develop new techniques to support the strategy. Over this Parliament, we are investing £24.6 million in the development of effective TB vaccines for cattle and badgers. Our scientists are leading the world in the development of a deployable cattle vaccine. In 2013, I agreed with the European Commissioner the work that was needed to develop a viable cattle vaccine. We are designing the large-scale field trials necessary to take this forward. I am committed to meeting the earliest deadline for its implementation, but the need for the field trials and required legislative changes means that a usable cattle vaccine is still many years away. In the future, an oral badger vaccine might address some of the problems of injectable vaccine deployment and serve as a targeted control measure. Some progress has been made, but we do not yet have an oral badger vaccine that is effective. We are also stepping up investment in the development of improved diagnostic tests such as DNA-based technologies, so that we can deploy a targeted approach to identify and remove TB-infected badgers only.
The strategy recognises that achieving officially TB-free status for England will be a long haul. I am confident, however, that it is not beyond industry and Government working in partnership to achieve it for England in the time scales we envisage. My aim is for England to be free of TB by 2038, with healthy cattle living alongside healthy badgers.
The four-year culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset are pilots, and we always said we would learn lessons from them. It is crucial we get this right. That is why we are taking a responsible approach, accepting recommendations from experts to make the pilots better. Doing nothing is not an option. Bovine TB is a terrible disease that is devastating our cattle and dairy industries, and causing misery for many people in rural communities. We need to do everything we can, as set out in our strategy, to make England TB-free. I commend this statement to the House.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of his statement.
I agree with the Secretary of State on one thing: there is no doubt that bovine TB is one of the most important issues facing farmers today. It is a scourge and a threat to their livelihoods, and to those of the communities they serve. The ultimate solution to the problem will take time, a carefully considered use of the resources available and an understanding of the best scientific advice. Sadly, none of these things featured prominently in the announcement the Secretary of State has just made. Consistent with his inept handling of this shambles, he has put prejudice before science, secrecy before transparency, conflict before consensus and posturing before good policy.
Furthermore, he has completely ignored the will of the House, which only three weeks ago voted overwhelmingly to oppose his plans, to cancel the culls, and to seek alternative ways of dealing with the problem. Let me remind him that the result of the vote was 219 to 1, which by anyone’s estimate constituted a huge rejection of his policy and of the way in which he has handled the issue. He talks of a strategy, but there is no strategy here. This is an unscientific fudge with which he is trying to save his face.
The Secretary of State announced that the failed culls in Gloucestershire and Somerset would continue, although the IEP report said that they were ineffective and inhumane. He had planned to extend the cull to 10 further areas this year, and to 40 in due course. Does he still plan to do that, and if so, when? He said that
“culling needs to be part of the answer as there is no other satisfactory solution available at the moment.”
That is nonsense. Will he acknowledge that in Wales, where there has been no culling but there has been a vaccination programme, there has been a 48% decrease in the number of cattle slaughtered because of TB since 2009?
The Secretary of State said that
“the pilots showed that, in the majority of cases, shooting was accurate and can be a humane control method with minimal times to death.”
The fact is that the IEP report said that it was not accurate in up to 22.8% of cases, enough for the panel to conclude that it was inhumane. How can the Secretary of State possibly justify the continuing use of a method of killing—free shooting—which has been found to be inhumane by independent scientific advisers?
There seems to me to be no plan for independent oversight of the culls. If that is so—and perhaps the Secretary of State will clarify his intentions—I believe it to be a grave mistake. How can he justify it, given that the culls are very likely to increase TB risks to cattle unless they can kill more badgers more rapidly than in the pilots? What confidence can there be that that is being achieved if there is no independent oversight?
When I wrote to the Secretary of State on 17 March offering to work with him on the development of an evidence-based cross-party programme, he wrote back that he would publish his TB strategy shortly, and would then ensure that his officials briefed me on its contents. I should be grateful for such a briefing, but I am afraid that that attitude is symptomatic of the approach taken by the Secretary of State throughout this sorry episode. Rather than engaging meaningfully in a search for a proper, long-term solution, he ignores scientific evidence, makes a decision based on his own prejudice, and then offers retrospectively to tell me and other Members what the policy is, and expects us to agree with him.
These are the facts. The IEP report shows that the Secretary of State’s disastrous culls are neither effective nor humane. It says that his plans will make the problem worse, not better. The two pilot culls failed to achieve their own success criterion of culling 70% of badgers in the six weeks. Against sound scientific evidence, they were extended, and then spectacularly failed again to cull the target number of badgers. The culls should be ended, not extended. They have not worked.
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a scientific consensus that the risk posed by ending these failed culls is lower than the risk that continuing them will spread the disease through perturbation? Given that consensus, why is he proceeding with them? What assessment has he made of the total cost to the taxpayer, and to hard-pressed farmers, of continuing the culls with any semblance of humaneness? If he proceeds as described, his culls can no longer be called evidence-based policy, if they ever were. What he has announced today is simply an open season on badgers in the culling areas. Will he confirm that the Government will agree to hold a full debate on the Floor of the House and a binding vote, in Government time, on the future of the cull programme and the report of the independent expert panel?
I believe that today’s statement falls far short of what farmers and the broader community deserve. Labour has made a series of reasonable, rational cross-party requests of the Government, none of which has been met so far, although the Government continually state that they want to deal with the issue on a cross-party basis. Labour will continue to work with farmers, wildlife groups and leading scientists to develop an alternative strategy to eradicate bovine TB. It would include tackling TB in badgers, focusing on vaccination; enhanced cattle measures, including compulsory pre and post-movement testing; a comprehensive risk-based trading system; and more robust biosecurity. We have said consistently that the culls are bad for farmers, bad for the taxpayer, and bad for our wildlife. The Secretary of State’s humiliating climbdown on the roll-out of his disastrous badger cull programme means that Labour’s proposals are the only way out of this mess.
Mr Paterson
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments, and congratulate her on her use of alliteration.
I remind the hon. Lady that between 1998 and 2010, under the Government she supported, the total number of herd breakdowns tripled from 1,226 to 3,634 and the number of cattle slaughtered rose sixfold, from 4,102 to 24,000. I also remind her that when we adopted a bipartisan approach back in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, we all but had this disease beat, with a prevalence of 0.01%. All that I ask is for her to work with us and follow the example of other nations with a severe reservoir of—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We do not need this constant shouting from Members on both sides of the House, including Opposition Front Benchers. I do not want to hear it from the Government Whips, and I do not want to hear it from the Opposition Front Bench.
Mr Paterson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The position is very simple. The pilots were set up last year. The hon. Lady asked about the roll-out of our programme. We made clear that we would learn lessons: the IEP report contained some very helpful advice, and we will adopt it. We are acting responsibly by maintaining the two existing cull areas. The hon. Lady mentioned the risk of increasing disease. My chief veterinary officer, Nigel Gibbens, has stated emphatically that ending culling in the two existing areas would greatly increase the risk of the disease, and his very strong scientific advice is that it should continue.
As for Wales, I am delighted that there has been a reduction in the disease there. According to the farmers in Wales to whom I have spoken, it may be due to the spike that occurred when annual testing was introduced recently. Given that the vaccination trial has only been taking place for two years in 1.5% of the land in Wales, to attribute it to vaccination is laughable.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of humaneness. The IEP report shows that 68 out of 69 badgers died virtually instantly. However, there are clear lessons to be learned on how we can improve humaneness, which we are happy to adopt.
The hon. Lady mentioned the number culled last year. I remind her that during the first year of the randomised badger culling trial that took place under the Government she supported, only 32%, 37% and 39% respectively were culled in three of the trial areas, but in those areas the culls did contribute to disease reduction later on.
The hon. Lady also mentioned cost. We are heading for a bill of £1 billion. We simply must address the disease in cattle and in wildlife, as has happened in every other country to which I referred in my statement. [Interruption.] I have already touched on the subject of Wales and vaccination, but I repeat for the benefit of Opposition Front Benchers who are chuntering from a sedentary position that it is not credible to attribute the reduction in Wales to a two-year vaccination programme that took place in 1.5% of the geographical area of Wales.
The hon. Lady came up with a few ideas, and I am delighted to say that we are in agreement on all of them. On badger vaccination, I have announced that we want to establish a buffer zone at the edges of the worst affected areas, because treating healthy badgers with the current badger vaccine—however difficult it is to deploy, given that a third of badgers are trap-shy—may help to build up a buffer zone, and that is worth doing. Sadly, injecting diseased badgers in the hot-spot areas with cattle vaccine will not reduce the incidence of the disease. I think that we agree on that.
The hon. Lady mentioned risk-based trading in connection with for cattle measures. We have already introduced that. I was very clear about this in my statement. If she looks at the strategy, she will see there are considerable new measures there, which are much stricter on cattle risk-based trading. It would be good if the hon. Lady went through our response to the independent panel so she sees that we are adopting its proposals, and went through our strategy, which shows that we are looking to bring in a whole range of tools. She should not just focus on culling of diseased badgers, although that is an important part, as we are bringing in a whole range of other measures, and down the road, as I made clear in the statement, I really do want to get to the position where we are leading the world on developing a cattle vaccine and where, above all, we can get better diagnostic techniques—possibly DNA systems—which can diagnose disease in cattle and in badgers.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the strategy and the fact that the Government are going to implement the panel recommendations. The public will be very alarmed that TB is now spreading through pets, and I hope the Secretary of State can address that. I urge him to give the House an assurance on the date when the field trials will take place and the timetable for the legislative changes, and will he also look favourably on the sterilisation programme which is being developed in my constituency?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for her questions. On the development of cattle vaccine, which I think she was asking about, we do not have an immediate timetable when we can start. These are complex, difficult trials and we need to work out, working closely with the European Commission, how we bring them in in practical terms. A major issue is what we do with the animals that may have been treated, because we have to decide whether they can go for human consumption or not.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Like the Secretary of State, I think it is important that the House tries to work together, because whatever happens next spring I suspect the coalition will not exist. [Interruption.] I am certain about it. Will he agree, in keeping with the code of practice for scientific advisory committees, to publish all the scientific advice he has received? I remind him that the code of practice says that only in the exceptional circumstances of matters of national security should it be withheld. It needs to be published, including, for example, the advice the Secretary of State has received on the tiny risks related to pets.
Mr Paterson
We are very clear in the document. The hon. Gentleman should read the strategy, as there is a significant amount of information in it, including references to where we have got advice from.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been following the development of vaccines for badgers and cattle and I commend the Secretary of State on continuing that work, but he knows that a test that could identify diseased badgers so we could eliminate them and vaccinate the healthy badgers would really take us forward. Can he tell the House what progress is being made on those matters?
Mr Paterson
I think my hon. Friend and I will be in total agreement that it would be a huge change in the whole debate if we could establish some form of polymerase chain reaction technology using DNA where we could identify and differentiate diseased and healthy cattle and, above all, diseased and healthy badgers. We are pressing on with that—we have done a lot of work with Warwick university—because I do think this would change the whole debate, and if we could target culling, it would be so much better and so much quicker and make it more effective.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
For the sake of the record of the House, can the Secretary of State be clear about the decision relating to the roll-out of the culls? Is the roll-out cancelled or is it scheduled for a further date, and if so, when will the culls be rolled out?
Mr Paterson
I am very happy to clarify that, but I thought I made it clear in the statement. What we are saying is that there are clear lessons to be learned from the panel report, and clear lessons in practical terms that we learned from the cull companies, so sensibly we are continuing with the existing two pilots so we can perfect this system of removing diseased wildlife. Once we are happy we have got that system perfected, we will look to a further roll-out. The original intention was to have 10 areas, and we have over 30 expressions of interest from around the country. [Interruption.] Those chuntering on the Opposition Front Bench should not underestimate the desperation in cattle areas and the frustration that we cannot go faster. It is clear from the panel report that we need to perfect this particular method of removing diseased badgers before rolling out further. However, it is emphatically our decision to roll out further once the technique is perfected.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I welcome the vaccination programme around infection hot spots, but the skin test is clearly failing as the number of carcases rejected post-slaughter more than doubled between 2012 and 2013 and is increasing again this year. My constituents, such as Simon Cotton, are having cattle which have passed the skin test condemned without compensation at slaughter. The Government are consulting on a risk-based trading strategy which is completely flawed because it is based on the skin test, and the electronic device that Nottingham Trent university is working on is supposed to be three years away. What can the Secretary of State do to save my constituents from the total loss of condemned carcases and having their time wasted on futile consultations and their cats infected, all because we do not have a proper skin test?
Mr Paterson
Our proposal is for badger vaccination on the edge of the hot-spot areas. There is no point in vaccinating in the hot spots as, sadly, the animals are already diseased and infected. The idea is to get a buffer zone around the edge.
I do not entirely agree with all my hon. Friend’s comments on what we are doing elsewhere. We are all, sadly, very aware of the ineffectiveness of some of our technology. We know that BCG is not a perfect vaccine, and we are fully aware that the skin test is not a perfect individual animal test, but it is currently the method used in every other country with a major problem of TB in cattle and it does give a broad result, within which other countries have managed to bring this disease down.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. May I remind the House that we have a Select Committee report and two Back-Bench debates this afternoon? The convention for statements is that Members ask one question of the Secretary of State—not make statements, but ask one question. We will get everybody in if that convention is followed by Members, so I hope from now on we can move at a slightly faster pace.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I think people around the country will be really shocked by this statement, not just because it represents a complete disregard of the science and the evidence, but because it is also likely to make bovine TB worse, not better. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that he will bring this issue back to the House so we can have a vote before it goes any further?
Mr Paterson
I am sorry that the hon. Lady reacts in such a way. I would stress very clearly that this strategy has been prepared over recent months, after exhaustive consultation.
Mr Paterson
The hon. Lady shakes her head. I am sorry, but I have to repeat this: we have consulted very widely across the country, and a very wide number of senior scientists have been involved, and this is endorsed by our chief veterinary officer. We had a vote back last year which endorsed our strategy with a majority of 61 on a substantive motion. This is a broad strategy that was endorsed then, and we are delivering what we promised to the House then.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
On behalf of farmers in Burton and Uttoxeter who have seen decades of work destroyed by this disease, may I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to tackling and eradicating TB? I have had a number of e-mails from worried constituents recently, who are concerned about the reports in the newspapers of TB spreading to cats and domestic animals. Can the Secretary of State tell us what analysis he has done of that and the risks incurred from it?
Mr Paterson
I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive comments. As we have seen graphically from the experience in Newbury, this is a disease that does transfer to other species; it is a zoonosis that can be caught by human beings. The Newbury example, where it looks as if the cats had the same spoligotype as cattle—there is not yet a direct link with badgers but it may be that the badgers in that area also have the same type of TB—is a real wake-up call to us all, as it shows this is a deadly serious disease and, as in every other country where they have addressed it, we have to address it not just in cattle but also in wildlife, because we want to have healthy cattle, healthy wildlife and healthy humans.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
In responding to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the Secretary of State said he thought that the independent expert panel’s report contained some “helpful advice”. How does he respond to the panel’s finding that
“culling badgers over a 6-week period by shooting, or by shooting and cage trapping, fails to meet the criteria of effectiveness set out by Defra”?
Mr Paterson
We agree with the IEP report that there are lessons to be learned. These were pilots, and we are looking to perfect the techniques for removing diseased animals by controlled shooting and by trapping. There is some very helpful advice in the IEP report, which we intend to take on so that the pilots can be proved to be effective, safe and humane and so that we can roll them out to other parts of the country that are desperate to get on top of TB.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to emphasise the comprehensive eradication strategy, of which the removal of infection in the wildlife in a highly infected area is but a part, albeit a vital one. Will he continue to consider alternatives to free shooting, which has been shown to be vulnerable to disruption? Will he also extend the competition to find a successful diagnostic tool to identify infected setts?
Mr Paterson
I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend says, just as I endorsed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). It would be a huge help if we could develop a polymerase chain reaction testing system that could instantly diagnose the disease in cattle and in badgers. It would be tremendous if we could run such tests on milk samples daily, for example, rather than having to use the skin tests, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) has pointed out, are inadequate and not all that accurate. It would be a huge help if PCR tests could determine which setts had diseased badgers, so that we could focus on them. We are really pressing on with this; it is a top priority for me.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State is so confident that his strategy will be successful—with respect, he knows that many of us have great doubts about that—why are the Government not paying for it? Why do they expect farmers to contribute towards the £100 million a year costs? The Secretary of State wants the strategy to be successful, and there is more than enough money to pay for it, as well as money for the Treasury to pocket afterwards. Why are farmers being expected to contribute?
Mr Paterson
I am looking at examples from across the world. I was in New Zealand last year, where there is a huge cost to the Government from TB, as there is here. Here, we are looking at a bill of £1 billion for the taxpayer. It is clear from examples such as New Zealand that the state working in partnership with farmers has delivered results. It is perfectly obvious that farmers and farmers’ organisations have a huge personal vested interest in getting on top of this disease, and our working with them is the sensible way forward.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to eradicating TB. In Devon, a quarter of the herds are affected by TB, and a third of the badgers are infected with the disease. It has been scientifically proven that half the cases of TB in the endemic areas have been transferred by badgers to cattle. When will more culls take place? Can we put the relevant areas together so that when the lessons have been learned from the two pilot culls, we will be ready to roll out the culls across Devon? Our farmers in Devon are absolutely desperate.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. He has been stalwart in defending his constituents and bringing to my personal attention the horrific problem of bovine tuberculosis, particularly in Devon. When I was at the North Devon show, I asked the farming organisations there to start organising. There are 30 areas that have shown an interest in having culls, once we have got the pilots behind us, so my advice to those in Devon is: start organising. Once we have perfected the technique in Somerset and Gloucestershire, I am keen to roll it out because I understand the desperation in areas such as that of my hon. Friend that have such an intensity of disease.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the British Veterinary Association. I commend the Secretary of State’s statement and look forward to his rolling out the exercise across the rest of the United Kingdom, and especially in Northern Ireland. We have seen an increase in bovine TB in my constituency and in County Armagh, which represents a worrying change in the trend. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the scheme involving catching and testing, followed by either culling or injecting, is very expensive? Will he tell us how much money has been set aside for it?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a devolved issue, so it is up to him to discuss elsewhere whether the catch, trap, test and eliminate policy is introduced in Northern Ireland. We are not proposing to do that in England. He makes the valid point, however, that trapping badgers is not easy. We estimate that about a third of badgers are trap-shy, which presents real practical problems for those who are enthusiastic about vaccination.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
In my area, we also have TB in dairy goats, but the farmers involved are not covered by the compensation scheme. Will the Secretary of State consider changing that rule, because it is causing desperation among those farmers?
Mr Paterson
I was talking to farming representatives who had come over the border into my own patch last Friday, and I am aware that there is a bad case in Staffordshire involving goats. We need to look at this issue. We have made it clear that we are going to consult on bringing alpacas into the regime, and we should look at goats as well.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
We fully agree on the range of measures needed, such as vaccination and pre-movement testing. However, given the failure of the culls to meet effective percentages, even after an extension, and given the risk of perturbation, which has not been addressed today, why will the Secretary of State not transfer the resources that are being wasted on a second round of culling into the vital research that needs to be done on finding the right kinds of testing and vaccination?
Mr Paterson
The hon. Lady might have misunderstood my earlier comments. The chief veterinary officer is absolutely clear that we have to carry on within the two pilots, because of perturbation. We have absolutely taken that on board. I am pleased that the hon. Lady is happy with our proposals to accelerate our diagnostic work, the work on DNA that we have talked about and the improvements to vaccinations, but she has to respect the fact that every other country that has a reservoir of TB in its wildlife has removed the diseased wildlife. She might regret that, but it is a fundamental part of those other countries’ success.
Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State and his Department be working in the immediate future with voluntary organisations such as the Dorset Wildlife Trust and the Dorset Badger Vaccination Project, to ensure that we do something about this now?
Mr Paterson
That is a helpful question. We are making major changes to create a buffer zone, injecting, we hope, healthy badgers. We will need volunteers, and I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend might have contacts in her constituency who would like to help us in the buffer zone. Sadly, however, I have to remind her that in the core zone, where there is intensity of disease, vaccination will not work. It is in the buffer zone that we will really need help.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
What does the Secretary of State expect the policing costs of rolling out the culls to be?
Mr Paterson
That rather depends on what the protesters do. If the countryside were inhabited only by responsible country people, who are very concerned about TB, the policing costs would be very low. I totally respect democracy. We all have different views, and I totally respect people’s right to protest, but if we have an invasion of protesters who try to stop the democratic Government’s disease control policy by using measures that cross the border from legitimate democratic protest into active disruption, the policing costs will become significant.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
When did the Secretary of State last discuss the timetable for establishing a legal, validated cattle vaccine with the European Commission?
Mr Paterson
I saw the commissioner on the Monday a fortnight ago—the first day I came back.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The lesson is clear: without culling, Wales has reduced the number of bovine TB cases by 50%. It has done that not just by vaccination but by other methods. The Secretary of State’s experiment has failed in many, many respects: in its duration; in the number of animals killed; and, especially, in the suffering caused, as up to a quarter of the badgers took five minutes to die. Does he think that this example of gratuitous cruelty is likely to increase or decrease the number of protesters against this continuing tomfoolery?
Mr Paterson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but he must look at the longer term in Wales. According to my sources in Wales, there was a spike because annual testing was introduced, and that accounts for the reduction. It is simply not possible to attribute this dramatic reduction, which is very welcome, to the 1.5% of Wales that has had a badger vaccination trial for two years. On humaneness, I repeat that 68 out of 69 badgers died almost instantly. The panel report contains clear recommendations on how we can improve our techniques. Seven badgers are completely unaccounted for—they may have been missed entirely. The panel decided to put them in the category of having taken more than five minutes to die, but if they were missed entirely—they may be out there now, hale and healthy—the figure comes down dramatically, and 95% of the badgers would have died within the five-minute limit.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a bit disingenuous to imply that vaccination is the solution in Wales, given that the reduction in TB is the same outside the vaccination area as it is inside that area? Furthermore, it is a bit rich for opponents of the cull to condemn a method of controlling badgers that they promote for the control of foxes.
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend makes two very pertinent comments. We wish the regime in Wales well, but it simply is not credible to attribute this reduction to the brief period of vaccination in 1.5% of the land area.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
The IEP report said that the cull trial was ineffective, that it did not reach its target and that it was inhumane. What would the Secretary of State’s definition of failure be?
Mr Paterson
That is a pessimistic interpretation of the IEP report. We are perfectly aware of the difficulty of achieving the numbers in the cull last year, but it was the first year. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that in the RBCT three areas achieved figures of 32%, 37% and 39%. They also got off to a slow start, but in later years they contributed to disease reduction. He wants a definition of success—it is reducing TB, and getting healthy cattle and healthy badgers.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
On behalf of my local farmers in Devon, may I commend my right hon. Friend for pressing on with what is right? It is right for our farmers, for rural communities, for the taxpayer and for cattle, and although this is often overlooked, it is also distinctly right for those badgers that will otherwise die a long and lingering death from this dreadful disease. Will he confirm that there is not a single country in the world where TB has been effectively addressed in cattle without it first being addressed in the wildlife population?
Mr Paterson
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He rightly draws attention to foreign comparisons, and the most obvious is the Republic of Ireland. In 1999, 44,903 cattle were culled there, but by following the same techniques that we have—strict cattle movement controls, slaughter of reactors, and by removing diseased badgers—the number decreased last year to 15,612. That is a dramatic reduction of two thirds, and I am happy to report that scientists tell me that the average Irish badger is 1 kg heavier than before the cull, because the badgers are healthier and they are eating better.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
As my constituency contains one of the cull pilot areas, I know how difficult this process has been. May I congratulate the Secretary of State on the thoughtful way in which he has presented his statement about the comprehensive strategy, which will be welcomed by my local farmers? May I ask him to repeat for the benefit of my constituents who are perhaps not as supportive of the cull the important comments he made about accepting the IEP’s recommendations to deal with the concerns that people might have about the humaneness of the pilot cull as it is rolled out further in Gloucestershire?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s broad support for the policy and for sticking up for his constituents. We are absolutely clear that the panel report shows that 68 out of 69 badgers died almost instantly, but a number did not. The report makes some clear, practical recommendations on how we can improve humaneness. We emphatically want to do that, which is why we are not rolling things out further for the moment. We are holding to the existing two pilots to see whether we can perfect the techniques to make sure that they are humane, effective and safe.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his determination to tackle bovine TB and, in particular, to stop its movement and create buffer zones. The shadow Minister spoke of inept handling, but when Labour was in power it was well known that bovine TB was moving towards Cheshire at a rate of 4 miles a year—tragically, it arrived. Does the Secretary of State agree that the inept handling of the former Labour Government in not tackling that movement put so many Cheshire farmers in the distressed position they are in today?
Mr Paterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the 13 wasted years that let this disease rip. Her local farmers are very close to mine, and they are getting desperate, as this disease costs such a lot. It is not just about the cattle; we must consider the human cost of farmers being devastated and of lifetimes’ of work being destroyed, while they know perfectly well that in Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland, where the disease is addressed in cattle and in wildlife, the disease can be got rid of.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s innovative idea of the vaccination buffer zones. How wide are they? How many cattle were slaughtered as a result of bovine TB last year? What is the total number of badgers killed in the pilot culls?
Mr Paterson
The idea is to establish a buffer zone on the edge, and I am delighted by the positive response from Members in the House. We will look to consult on how we bring in various groups. I am delighted that there might be volunteers, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) mentioned. The extent of this will be the number of people we can actually get involved. The number of cattle slaughtered in Britain last year was 32,620 perfectly healthy cattle, which is more than 90 a day. The numbers for badgers killed in the culls was 955 in west Somerset and 924 in Gloucestershire.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I wish to challenge my right hon. Friend’s assertion in his statement that there is no point in undertaking any vaccination in the hot-spot areas, not least because the Department’s own trial in Stroud, a hot-spot area, has demonstrated significant improvement. In addition, we have a significant programme ready to roll with the Zoological Society of London in the Penwith area of my constituency. Will he and his scientists meet me and my scientists so that we can explore this issue?
Mr Paterson
I am perfectly happy for my experts to meet my hon. Friend’s, but the categorical advice I am getting is that, sadly, once a badger is infected with bovine TB, the current injectable vaccination does not make them healthy. The vaccine is difficult to deliver—as I have said, a third of badgers are trap-shy. So even if we catch the remaining two thirds and inject them with a vaccine, they will not become healthy, and that is sad.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Secretary of State’s emphasis on improving the system of diagnosis for this disease, because that is how we can effectively bring together the three components—vaccination, cattle movement restriction and culling—so that they can work. Does he agree?
Mr Paterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support and for sticking up for his constituents. I have been there and seen the real problems we have in Gloucestershire. He rightly identifies the fact that the strategy encompasses a range of activities—there is no one golden key to this. The lesson is that we must use all the tools. If we decide arbitrarily on misguided grounds to miss out one tool, which has been used in other countries, we will not succeed. We must use all the tools as outlined in the strategy.
Points of Order
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the earlier ministerial statement on standardised packaging of tobacco products, I omitted to draw to the attention of the House my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do so now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
I thank the hon. Lady for adding that to the record.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, the Government chief scientist, Sir Mark Walport, spoke to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in which he referred to the principles of scientific advice to Government, which applies to Ministers and Government Departments, all members of scientific advisory committees and councils and so on. The advice specifically says:
“Scientific advice to Government should be made publicly available unless there are overriding reasons, such as national security or the facilitation of a crime, for not doing so.”
In light of the earlier comments, Madam Deputy Speaker, would you use your good offices to bring this to the attention of the Treasury Benches?
Madam Deputy Speaker
May I say to the hon. Gentleman that he has been very effective himself in drawing the matter to the notice of the Treasury Benches? It is not a point of order for the Chair, but possibly a matter for a fascinating discussion on the Floor of the House on how to implement the advice, which is also not in the gift of the Chair. We should therefore now move on.
Housing Costs
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Dame Anne Begg will speak to her subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and then call Dame Anne Begg to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. I remind them that interventions should be questions and should be brief. Members on the Front Bench may take part in the questioning if they wish.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab) (Select Committee Statement)
Yesterday, the Work and Pensions Committee published our report on support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system. Our inquiry explored recent reforms to housing support, including the effects of the individual household benefit cap, the changes to council tax relief, the effects on supported accommodation and reforms to local housing allowance, which is housing benefit for those who are renting in the private sector. We considered the changes that might need to come into force once universal credit is rolled out. Not least, we also looked at the operation of what we call the social sector size criteria, the Government call the spare room subsidy or the under-occupancy penalty, and everyone else calls the bedroom tax.
It is timely that we are launching this report now. It is one year since the bedroom tax was implemented and since the benefit cap began to be rolled out. The Government have reformed the housing costs support system with the aim of reducing benefit expenditure and incentivising people to enter work. We concluded that some vulnerable people, who were not the intended targets of the reforms and who are not able to respond by moving house or finding a job, are suffering as a result of these reforms, which are causing them financial hardship.
The Government’s aims in introducing the bedroom tax were to tackle overcrowding in the social housing sector and to reduce housing benefit expenditure. However, we believe that it has so far been a blunt instrument for achieving that. That is due at least in part to the fact that there are not enough smaller social housing units in the areas where benefit claimants are deemed to be over-occupying. The Government should carry out a detailed assessment of the available social housing stock in each local authority area. If the evidence shows that there are insufficient smaller homes for people to move to, the Government should give people more time to find ways to adjust to the bedroom tax before it is imposed. In areas where the household is under-occupying but there is no suitable, reasonable alternative housing available—we found that some people wanted to move but simply could not—we believe the bedroom tax should not be applied.
The bedroom tax is having a particularly adverse impact on disabled people. We highlighted that between 60% and 70% of the affected households in England contain somebody with a disability, and many of those people will not be able to move home easily due to their disability. They therefore must remain in their home, with no option but to face a reduction in their housing benefit. Many disabled people cannot move because they live in homes that have been specially adapted to help them to cope with their disabilities. Even if they could find another accessible home, which is highly unlikely, there would be additional costs for the local council in adapting the new home before they can move into it.
Many people with disabilities also have legitimate reasons for requiring what is inaccurately deemed to be a spare room. It might be needed to accommodate a carer or medical equipment, or because they cannot share a room with their partner because of their condition. We recommend that disabled people living in a home that has been significantly adapted for them should be exempt. We also urge the Government to go further and exempt all households that contain a person in receipt of higher rate disability living allowance or the equivalent in personal independence payment.
There is also evidence that, rather than saving public money, which was one of its key aims, the so-called bedroom tax is often just shifting costs to local authorities and housing providers. We therefore call on the Government to carry out a full cost-effectiveness analysis of the policy by this time next year, so that the overall impact of the policy on the public purse can be properly evaluated.
We found that the benefit cap was having a particularly adverse impact on two groups of claimants: carers and people in temporary accommodation. People on disability benefits are excluded from the cap but not people who claim carer’s allowance. Even some carers who live in the same household as the disabled person are not exempt from the cap; that is because, if the disabled person they care for is a parent or adult child, the carer is not considered to be part of the same benefit unit. We recommend that the Government should exempt all recipients of carer’s allowance in that situation from the benefit cap.
Local authorities often have no option but to place homeless households in temporary accommodation, which is usually more expensive than permanent accommodation. Those claimants can then fall within the scope of the individual household benefit cap, even though homeless people have no choice in where they are housed and few options for reducing their housing costs. It seems particularly unjust, therefore, for them to be affected by the individual household benefit cap. As local authorities often have to pay the shortfall between rent levels and housing benefit for those affected by the cap, no overall saving is made. Again, we have also recommended that the Government exempt all households in temporary accommodation from the household benefit cap.
One area in which we had some success is supported accommodation, which is used to house vulnerable people, particularly homeless people and women fleeing domestic violence. Exemptions from the benefit cap apply to claimants who live in exempt supported accommodation. However, we received evidence that only some supported accommodation was exempt from the cap, because of the way it is defined. Two claimants housed in supported accommodation units that appeared to be identical might find that one was subject to the cap and the other was exempt. I raised that anomaly with the Prime Minister in a Liaison Committee evidence session in January. Lord Freud, the Minister for Welfare Reform, told us in evidence in February that amending regulations would be laid to remove the anomaly. We very much welcome the fact that those regulations were laid last week. We also welcome the Minister’s confirmation that “virtually all” supported accommodation will be exempted from the cap when they are implemented.
The Government believe that the best way to help people facing hardship as a result of the reforms is through the discretionary housing payments system. We recognise that the Government have provided extra funding for this transitional protection, but those payments are intended to be “transitional”, being allocated inconsistently and only for a short time. Whether or not a claimant is awarded DHP is heavily dependent on where they live, because different local authorities apply different eligibility rules. Access to DHPs should depend on need and not on somebody’s postcode.
DHPs are also intended to offer a temporary, not a permanent, solution to people being unable to meet the full costs of their rent from their housing benefit, but many people are likely to need long-term help because they cannot move house to avoid paying the so-called bedroom tax and because they are often unable to find a job or to work extra hours to make up the shortfall. We believe that the Government should make it much clearer to local authorities that they can make long-term DHP awards, so that claimants who are disabled or vulnerable in other ways do not have to worry about the uncertainty of having to make a repeat claim every three or six months.
Some local authorities take disability benefits into account in the means test they apply for DHP, so some disabled people do not qualify for such help. However, disability benefits are intended to cover the extra costs that people incur because they are disabled or long-term sick; they are not disposable income. It is not appropriate for them to be included in the means test for DHPs and we believe that the Government should issue clear guidance to local authorities that disability benefits should be disregarded in any means test for DHPs.
Finally, we considered the local housing allowance. Private sector rents are becoming increasingly less affordable for housing benefit claimants because of the growing discrepancy between average rents and the amount of local housing allowance that households can claim. As a result, private sector landlords are increasingly reluctant to rent to LHA recipients, evictions and non-renewals of tenancies are increasing, and the properties that remain available to claimants are increasingly of poor quality. The Government’s figures show that homelessness acceptances are down overall, but increases are occurring in high-demand areas, and homelessness among people who are classified as “not in priority need” increased by 9% between 2012 and 2013. We believe that the Government need to monitor the impact of the local housing allowance reforms carefully and look at further ways of supporting claimants if the reforms are found to be exacerbating homelessness.
I commend our report to the House.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady concede that of the 60% to 70% of claimants referred to in her statement as claiming to be disabled, only 27% are in receipt of disability living allowance and only 18% are in receipt of the higher rate? It is those people with the highest need who are most likely to have adapted homes and it is that group of people for whom discretionary housing payments are intended. In the current financial year, £165 million has been made available to support them.
Dame Anne Begg
Indeed. That is why the Committee did not go so far as to say that all people with a disability should be exempt and suggested that perhaps a proxy, such as those in the higher rate DLA category, might be acceptable. We are very clear that we think that the groups that the hon. Lady mentions should be exempt. I know that many Government Back Benchers often think that those people are exempt, but they are not, for the reasons I gave in my statement. We think that it should be very clear that someone in an adapted house, for instance, should not have even to apply for DHP. Surely they should be automatically exempt.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I welcome the report, which clearly identifies a hardship faced by many disabled people and their carers. Is my hon. Friend confident that the Government will exempt the individuals whose circumstances are outlined in the report from the bedroom tax?
Dame Anne Begg
I would hope so, simply because I know that Ministers have often repeated that the groups we describe really should not be subject to the spare room subsidy, or the bedroom tax, as everybody else calls it. I keep forgetting what we call it—that is it: the social sector size criteria. Ministers have often said that those people are exempt, but of course they are not. They are only generally not asked to pay because they qualify for DHP. As I pointed out, in the council areas where disability living allowance is counted as income in the means test, the very people that everybody in this House would hope are exempt from the policy are not exempt.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend the hon. Lady and her Committee for the report. Recommendation 18, which is highlighted in more detail on page 43 and is about discretionary housing payments and people in receipt of disability benefits, is perhaps one of the most powerful recommendations in her report. As the excellent Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who is very sensitive to these important issues, is on the Front Bench today, may I reinforce her extremely powerful recommendation that the Government should issue revised guidance to local authorities to clear up the point about whether disability benefits should or should not be included in means-testing for eligibility for DHP awards? Clearly, local authorities are not doing the same thing and it is important to get standard practice across the country where possible. These issues are difficult enough, but they are magnified for those who are disabled.
Dame Anne Begg
The whole thrust of our report was to emphasise that we think people have ended up being affected by the policy who were never its intended targets. That is the hon. Gentleman’s point and I hope that the Minister is listening.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I, too, commend the hon. Lady and the Committee for this valuable report. Does she agree that the cross-party efforts to mitigate fully the impact of the bedroom tax in Scotland would be greatly aided if the UK Government were to allow the Scottish Government to raise the threshold for discretionary housing payments? Can she suggest how Government intransigence on this issue might be tackled?
Dame Anne Begg
We mentioned that in the report, because obviously the situation is different in Scotland and needs a solution there. Anything that will help to ensure that the Scottish Government are in a position to implement their policies is welcome, but I also know that there are discussions going on in Scotland about how else the situation can be mitigated for the people who live there.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
I was just reflecting, in the context of the report, on the question of the evidence we have, if we have any, about people who suffer from disabilities and live in crowded accommodation who now have the opportunity to move to less crowded accommodation as a consequence of the Government’s policy. Would the hon. Lady like to comment on that?
Dame Anne Begg
Part of the problem, as we mention in the report, is that there are not enough houses for the people in houses that are deemed to be under-occupied to move into to release the larger houses, which is the Government’s policy intention. Unfortunately, the report was already agreed and printed by the time the BBC published the results of its investigation last week into the number of people who had moved, which discovered that the figure was only 6%. Although the intention of the policy was to free up larger houses, it seems that that has not really happened simply because there are not the smaller houses for people to move to. We found evidence that people who were desperate to move could not do so because there was no house for them, and they had no option but to absorb the extra costs. They were having to find what would have been paid in housing benefit from a very limited budget.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and her Committee on this excellent report. Of course, there are recommendations about benefit sanctions and we are about to have a detailed debate on that issue. In my constituency, benefit sanctions have more than doubled, increasing by 123%, and we understand that one in five of the people being sanctioned has a disability. Did the Committee hear evidence on that or does it have a view about the types of groups that are being affected by that policy?
Dame Anne Begg
Not specifically, because a lot of that will have been covered elsewhere, although there is some confusion about people who might be sanctioned in one part of the benefits system whose housing benefit should not be affected but sometimes is. However, we did not consider that specific issue in this report.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I am sure that the Chair of the Committee would agree that the topic was not the easiest one for the Committee to reach agreement on, as the record shows. Does she agree that one issue is that the reforms are still in their early days and it is hard to find the data to work out whether they are being as successful as we would perhaps all like? Further efforts are needed from local authorities, local housing associations and others to ensure we are making the best and most efficient use of the housing stock we have.
Dame Anne Begg
That is why we say in more than one of our recommendations that the Government need to encourage local authorities to collect data on how their housing stock is being used. We call for an analysis across councils of the availability of houses for people affected by the policy to move into.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I join in the congratulations to the hon. Lady and her Committee on this report. Did the Committee consider the definition of under-occupancy—for example, the expectation that a toddler should share with a teenager or the size of a box room that would be adequate to house two grown children?
Dame Anne Begg
We did look at that. We suggested that the use of the term “bedroom” was misleading and that the Government should use the term “bed space” instead, for exactly the reason that my hon. Friend mentions. Two older children may be expected to share a room that has been deemed to be a bedroom, but the room may be so small that only a cot would fit in it. That is also relevant to whether disabled people are properly housed and whether they are deemed to have a spare bedroom. The Government need to be much clearer in their definition of what is acceptable, the size of room that is acceptable and the area that two beds take up in determining whether there is under-occupancy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Thank you for that report.
bill presented
football governance (No. 2) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.57)
Damian Collins, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Tracey Crouch, Mr Jim Cunningham, Philip Davies, Paul Farrelly, Penny Mordaunt, Steve Rotheram, Mr Adrian Sanders, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, Justin Tomlinson and Mr John Whittingdale, presented a Bill to require professional and semi-professional football clubs in England to disclose the identity of their owners; to give the Football Association powers to block the ownership of a club by anyone whom they consider is not a fit and proper person; to require all creditors of a football club to be compensated equally should the club go into administration; to facilitate the raising by supporters’ organisations of the finance required to acquire a controlling stake in a football club; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 June, and to be printed (Bill 198).
Backbench Business
Sanctioning of Benefit Recipients
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Michael Meacher (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that there have been many cases of sanctions being wrongfully applied to benefit recipients; and call on the Government to review the targeting, severity and impact of such sanctions.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate. The process of sanctioning benefit recipients is now being used on an enormous scale—almost 1 million sanctions a year. Even the right-wing Policy Exchange think-tank acknowledged in a report published last month that about 68,000 benefit claimants each year are having their welfare payments stopped unfairly. Given that the penalty for the first infringement is the loss of benefit for four weeks, for the second the loss of benefits for three months and for the third the loss of benefits for three years, the number of people being driven into destitution by administrative diktat is enormous. Even the Policy Exchange admits that 8% of that number should never have been sanctioned.
I presume that everyone accepts that fall-back sanctions have to be applied in extreme cases where there is deliberate and real non co-operation with the obligation to try to find work and where no good reasons have been found for such behaviour. Those sanctions should be proportionate and reasonable and not exercised punitively or with a view to achieving targets or objectives—whatever we call them—for removing people from the unemployment list.
From the evidence that I have collected from my constituency surgery, Citizens Advice, YMCA, the excellent Work and Pensions Committee report on this issue and the Library, it is abundantly clear that the standards that the DWP likes to claim always apply in sanctioning cases far too often certainly do not. I wish to cite a number of cases drawn directly from those sources.
A security guard at a jobcentre turned away a man with learning disabilities who had arrived 20 minutes early to sign on. The man then returned two minutes late to sign on and had his JSA sanctioned for 4 weeks.
A man was sanctioned for four weeks because he had not known about an appointment as the letter had been sent to an address that he had left a year ago, even though Jobcentre Plus was aware of his current address.
A woman claiming employment and support allowance had been diagnosed with cervical cancer and had given the back-to-work scheme provider a list of her hospital appointments. She was sanctioned for failing to attend an appointment on the middle day of her three-day hospital stay. The woman had two daughters but her ESA was reduced to £28 a week. She asked for reconsideration, but had heard nothing five weeks later.
A woman was sanctioned for failing to attend provider-led training when the receptionist had rung to tell her not to come in because the trainer was ill. She was subsequently told that she should have attended to sign the attendance register.
A woman whose ESA was sanctioned had her benefit reduced from £195 to less than £50 per fortnight because she missed a back-to-work scheme appointment owing to illness. Her sister had rung two days beforehand to say that she could not attend and arranged another date, when she did attend.
An epileptic man had his JSA sanctioned for four weeks because he did not attend a back-to-work scheme meeting as his two-year old daughter was taken ill and he was her sole carer that day. He rang the provider in advance, but was told this would still have to be noted as “did not attend”. During the four-week sanction he suffered hunger, hardship, stress and an increase in epileptic attacks, but he was not told about hardship payments or food banks or how to appeal the sanction decision.
Lastly, a man in Yorkshire and Humber was sanctioned for allegedly failing to attend back-to-work scheme events. He had in fact attended, and the provider had no record of any failures. His hardship request was not processed, his housing benefit was stopped, and he fell into rent arrears and had no money for food, gas or electricity.
These are not isolated or exceptional cases.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr Meacher
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I respect his concern about these matters, but I will not give way again because we are short of time, with the Government having put on two statements before this debate.
Sir Peter Bottomley
Is there any rational reason why in any of those cases the Jobcentre or others should not have reversed the decision if it was clear that the wrong decision had been taken? Why is it necessary to go through a full appeals system when clearly human inspection can say this is wrong?
Mr Meacher
I very much agree with that. Jobcentres Plus have the right to “reconsider”, which is a euphemistic term, and they sometimes do, but I agree that appeals often take three or more months, and are extremely bureaucratic, long-winded and difficult. Far more effort should be put in before the decision is taken to sanction, so that we get sensible decisions and long appeal procedures are not required.
Before I turn to what should be done to change policies and procedures that are patently not working properly, I want to make two wider points. First, everyone who can do so should seek work. The overwhelming majority of the jobless are desperate to find work. However, when 2.4 million people are on the dole queues today and there are only 558,000 vacancies, three out of every four simply cannot find a job whatever they do. A report in the Financial Times this week says that there are 3 million under-employed people who would be keen to work full time if only the jobs were available. The real problem in Britain today is not people failing to try to get work, but the Chancellor’s obsessional austerity policies that contract the economy and fail to provide the job opportunities that people are desperately looking for.
I do not object to the use of sanctions in the tiny number of cases in which they might be needed as long as they are proportionate and reasonable. However, I do object to the hounding of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, often for trivial, ill-considered or utterly unjustified reasons, and driving them into destitution when those who caused the financial crash and the longest recession in this country for 140 years get no sanction at all. It is a classic case of one law for the rich and another for the poor.
What should be done? Plenty. Sanctioning is being used on far too large a scale. The practice is not only unduly harsh and, obviously, causes severe hardship, but is often counter-productive. The YMCA cites three people’s comments about its effects. One says:
“I was unable to look for work as much as I could before”.
Another says:
“It stopped me from searching for work as I had no money to get to different employers”.
A third person says:
“My focus turned to survival rather than gaining employment”.
Citizens Advice makes the crucial observation—I think this was the point that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) was making—that front-line advisers do not have sufficient time to get to know a claimant and understand their needs. That explains why there are so many reports of cases such as that of a person with no computer skills being required to apply for work online, a person with no driving licence who is required to apply for a job for which driving is essential, and a wheelchair user who is required to apply for a job that is physically demanding.
Benefit off-flow—a horrible bureaucratic phrase that treats human beings like counters—is, perversely, the key performance measure used by Jobcentre Plus. Disallowances—that is the euphemism used by the Department for Work and Pensions—are included in the off-flow data for people coming off the unemployment list, so staff have an in-built incentive to use them to achieve what they perceive their management expect of them.
Much more could be done to prevent situations that cause sanctioning from arising in the first place because it is clear that in a great many cases people simply do not understand what is required of them. Regrettably, there is a toxic yet pervasive culture in Jobcentre Plus of “Sanction first; think later”, as is shown by the shockingly large number of sanctions against young people—there were 39,000 last year—that are subsequently overturned or, to use that wonderfully euphemistic word, “reconsidered”. Serious, thoughtful effort is needed to do everything possible to secure compliance, with which we all agree, without a sanction being necessary. There should be more common-sense discretion and much less of a rush to action: action should be taken only as a last resort.
Much more attention should be paid to the impact of sanctioning on claimants. An Oxfam report published last May estimated that 500,000 people were reliant on food aid—I suspect that that figure has now nearly doubled—and that more than half of people who turned to food banks did so as a direct result of having their benefit payments delayed, reduced or withdrawn altogether. In 21st-century Britain, can forcing hundreds of thousands of people onto food aid, which is usually associated with third-world countries, conceivably be justified when the root cause of the problem is the Chancellor’s failure to grow the economy and create jobs because of his obsession with prolonged austerity? I think not, which is why I submit to the House that there is an urgent need, as my motion demands,
“to review the targeting, severity and impact”
of sanctioning as it is currently applied.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) has managed to secure the debate, although sadly it was scheduled at short notice, so I do not think that all hon. Members who might wish to be present are in the Chamber.
I support the Government’s general financial strategy, so I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about austerity. Clearly we have to bring the deficit under control, so we have to be aware of the costs of the welfare system. I support a number of the changes to the system that the Government have introduced, but some have caused complications. I am worried about the impact of the changes to council tax benefit, which need to be reviewed because they have created odd results. My Labour opponent has taken to encouraging people to move from West Bromwich to Birmingham because that allows them to get more benefits from the council tax payer. I think that that is wrong, because it puts pressure on our local taxpayers, but it arises because Sandwell, which is where West Bromwich is, has a different rule from Birmingham on qualifying for council tax benefit.
Like all hon. Members, I have an office that deals with casework, and we learn a lot from the people who come to see us. I worry, however, that people who are sanctioned do not come to see me because only four sanctions cases have come through. We are a reference agency for the local food bank. We have made four references to it, although, oddly enough, they did not involve the people who were sanctioned, because we have generally found that we can deal with such cases. I worry about what is happening that we do not see because, although we can read the statistics, we do not see the people affected, and I like to understand individual cases so that I can find out what is going on. I have been involved in welfare rights casework for coming up to 25 years, so I have seen the system’s various changes and got used to concepts such as non-dependent deductions. Those things are complicated and difficult for people to understand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) would love to be able to participate in the debate, but she has to be at another meeting, so she has asked me to quote her comments about a case from her constituency. She says:
“I have had many constituents who have been sanctioned completely inappropriately over the last 18 months. In all cases the removal of benefits has caused intense distress and suffering to people who are very vulnerable. This is a typical case—I shall call her Jenny. Jenny has profound mental health problems, learning difficulties and physical health problems. Her health problems and disabilities make it very difficult for her to organise herself and her own life. This is the reason that she finds it so difficult to hold down a job and the reason why she is on benefits. Jenny needs a great deal of support to function. Instead of which, when she missed appointments, her benefits were sanctioned, leaving her without any money whatsoever for more than 4 months. During this period Jenny was destitute and reliant on the food bank. The safety net of the welfare state that should support a woman who is too vulnerable to support herself entirely let her down.”
Those comments highlight the sort of cases that we should be especially worried about: those involving people who get confused by everything and are not quite sure what is going on, and all they find is that they do not have any money. Such people have visited my advice bureau. They know that they do not have any money but they do not know why. However, we have been able to deal with such situations.
Although the Opposition might think that the Government are out to get people, I do not think that that is true. The Government are trying to encourage people into work and to give support to those who need it, but we need to consider how we can review the sanctions process so that we do not trap people in destitution. If someone has no money, it is difficult to get a bus fare. A day’s bus fare in Birmingham is £3.60, which does not sound much to someone in work who is earning a lot of money, but it creates a bit of problem for someone who is on £71.70 a week and suddenly finds that they have no money at all.
That has a knock-on effect for housing benefit. We have marvellous computer systems that minimise the amount of paperwork that people need to do because benefits can be passported. If somebody gets JSA or some form of means-tested benefit, they automatically qualify for housing benefit as well. The problem is that when they come off JSA because they are sanctioned, the computer says no and suddenly they are taken off housing benefit as well. In fact, because they have got money, they qualify for housing benefit, but they have to put in another claim. This is the problem for people who have difficulty understanding how the system works. They know they have no money, but they do not understand why the council is asking them to pay rent. The danger with that is that they come for advice too late, and we end up trying to backdate housing benefit some months in a situation where people always qualified for it but had not claimed it.
The Government say that targets for sanctioning have been stopped, but there needs to be a review of how some of the agencies are operating. They seem to be referring too many people for sanctions, which creates problems. Then there is the question of delays on appeals. Obviously, a reconsideration is far better than an appeal, and there are mechanisms for that. We need to make sure that the advice agencies such as Citizens Advice get good co-operation from agencies such as Jobcentre Plus so that the process does not end up being over-bureaucratic.
I happened to ask a question about cases on appeal being stayed, because I discovered that the Department has had a tendency to stay cases. A thousand cases were stayed for more then six months. If there is a massive commercial dispute between two wealthy companies about an issue of copyright or patent, the fact that the court has not yet made up its mind does not affect either of them, but if somebody is destitute and depends on a food bank, it is a big issue if their case is stayed.
The Department needs to look at the cost-effectiveness of fighting some of these cases, and consider whether it might be better to cave in if a reasonable case is being made by the appellant. The amount of money being provided is not that great and the administrative cost of dealing with the case is quite high. One of the reasons that the Department does not turn up at tribunals from time to time is the administrative cost of doing that. I understand that the Department cannot give in all the time—there is no question about that—but there needs to be a cost-effectiveness calculation of fighting claims too hard, accepting that at the other end is not a large company that can wait, but somebody who is destitute and desperate for cash. Even though they may have family support and the like, I see people with very serious problems.
A further question that should be considered is whether the sanctioning system is designed the wrong way. I agree with the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton—we need a system to support compliance—but we should look at the way the universal credit sanctioning system has been designed, rather than the way the JSA sanctioning scheme works. The JSA sanctioning scheme is to a great extent punitive. It gives people a kick for doing something that the system deems to be wrong, whereas the universal credit system is designed to enforce compliance, so as soon as compliance starts, money starts again. That is what the system should be doing. We are waiting for the rest of universal credit and want to see that as soon as possible, but if the Government could bring in at an earlier stage the universal credit sanctioning system, we would have a system that is seen to be doing what it says on the tin and encouraging people to work with the system.
If, under that system, the easiest way of getting paid is for people to do what they are asked to do, rather than to fight it through an appeal process that can potentially take years to be settled, there would be a far better result for people. These are people without any other source of revenue, apart perhaps from support from families. Some people do not even have family support. We need to think about how the system is seen from those people’s point of view.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton on asking for this debate, and on his persistence and his willingness to stand in at the last minute. Many hon. Members are concerned about the issue as they see it in their constituency surgeries, and the Government need to review some aspects of the process.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May I suggest that Members take up to 10 minutes, because of the number of speakers in the next debate as well?
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
This is obviously a day for my Select Committee’s reports. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) referred to the report that we published a few months ago called “The role of Jobcentre Plus in the reformed welfare system”, in which we had a whole section on sanctions. Very helpfully, the Government published their response to that report today, so the debate is timely.
Sanctions as we know them today have probably existed from the 1980s, although there has always been conditionality as part of the rules for getting unemployment allowance. I suppose the question today is to what extent the use of sanctions has increased in recent years. Certainly there has been a huge increase since the Welfare Reform Act 2012 was passed. Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow, the leading academic authority on benefit sanctions, told my Committee that
“the severity of the regime has increased drastically under the Coalition Government and is increasing further.”
He also highlighted the common misconception that benefit sanctions affect only a small minority of benefit claimants. In the period 2008 to 2012 around one fifth of JSA claimants were sanctioned, approximately 1.4 million people. Official data show that, since the introduction of the new rules which have already been referred to, the proportion of JSA claimants sanctioned every month is around 5%, which is approximately 60,000 people. In the period from the introduction of the new JSA rules to June 2013 there were 553,000 sanctions, an increase of 11% on the same period a year earlier. There were 860,000 JSA sanctions in the year to June 2013, the highest number in any 12-month period since records began in their current form, and probably the highest number ever. The number of employment and support allowance sanctions—it is a new development that people on a disability benefit can be sanctioned—in the period December 2012 to June 2013 was double that in the same period a year earlier.
Despite all this, by May 2013 the report to the Secretary of State found
“no evidence of a secret national regime”
to set targets for the number of sanctions imposed. However, the Public and Commercial Services Union told my Committee that the expectations placed on Jobcentre Plus staff to sanction claimants were “targets by another name”. The argument about whether such targets exist continues to this day.
Both Members who have already spoken talked about inappropriate sanction referrals. We received evidence of quite a number of those, but in the light of Mr Deputy Speaker’s strictures, I will not detail them. Suffice to say that many were silly and inappropriate. With the application of common sense—that was the phrase that we used in our report—they could have been avoided or should have been picked up at review stage. About 50% of sanctions are overturned on review by a decision maker.
Many hon. Members will have received postcards from constituents that were probably sent to them by Church Action on Poverty and Oxfam, which asked my Select Committee to hold an inquiry into the use of food banks. Those postcards arrived in my office when we had already embarked on our inquiry into Jobcentre Plus. We had already decided that that would form part of the inquiry. Church Action on Poverty and Oxfam, in their report, “Walking the breadline”, found that sanctions were a significant factor in the recent substantial rise in referrals to food banks. They estimated that some half a million people in the UK were “reliant on food aid”, and that “up to half” of people who are referred to food banks need help
“as a direct result of having benefit payments delayed, reduced, or withdrawn”.
DWP was unable to provide information on the number or proportion of JSA claimants who chose to sign off benefit during a sanction period, or for longer, which is the reason that they would come off the claimant count. That might explain why there is some disparity between the figures for the number of people looking for work and the official unemployment figures.
The Committee recommended that Jobcentre Plus should look at the impact of sanctions on the use of food banks, but the Government have effectively rejected that in their response.
The Committee was also keen to see a second independent review of the sanctions regime, in addition to the one already being conducted by Matthew Oakley. Indeed, we thought that we had got the Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), to agree to that when she gave oral evidence. Matthew Oakley is considering the clarity of DWP’s communications with claimants, the whole issue of sanctions, the appeals process and the availability of hardship payments.
We had wanted that second independent review to examine: whether sanction referrals were made appropriately, proportionately and fairly across the jobcentre network; whether there is a the link between sanctioning and the claimant count that could explain some of the disparities in the figures; and whether the regime was achieving its aim of encouraging claimants to engage more effectively with employment support. There is no point having sanctions if we do not know whether they work. Are they making people look for work more thoroughly than they otherwise would? That is our question. We do not think that Matthew Oakley’s inquiry will answer that, because it is not in its remit.
The Committee thought that the Employment Minister had promised that second review, which is why our report states that we welcome that commitment. Unfortunately, that is not what she meant, because the Government’s response states that there will be no second review along the lines we were asking for, and which we thought the Government had agreed to.
I appeal again to the Government to consider setting up a second independent review, and not just of the administration of sanctions, but of their effectiveness. Do they actually work? Do they change the behaviour of the people affected? If they are not changing people’s behaviour and so are purely punitive, the Government should be honest about that, because they must be saving money as a result. I do not think that most people would accept the application of sanctions that are purely punitive. If they are changing people’s behaviour, that is a different matter.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement about the Government’s about-turn, given that the Minister wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton and referred to the second review’s terms of reference? It is therefore very surprising now to be told that it will not happen at all.
Dame Anne Begg
I share my right hon. Friend’s disappointment, because we honestly thought, even before we published the report, that we had got the Minister to agree to such a review. I hope that the Government will think again, because they need to be satisfied, just as everybody else does, that the regime is not intended simply to save money in the welfare system through punitive sanctions, but has a real purpose in ensuring that people who are not fulfilling their obligations under the agreements they signed and who are trying to play the system should be sanctioned in certain circumstances. Sanctions should certainly not be applied if there is no reason other than to punish the individuals concerned.
I know that my time is up, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister, who is listening patiently, will take that back to the Department and that we can get a second independent review of the workings of the sanctions regime.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I want to make one or two brief comments. I will start with an anecdote that seems typical of what other Members have alluded to this afternoon. It does not relate to my local Jobcentre Plus, but comes from the son of a friend. He attended his local Jobcentre Plus to apologise for the fact that he could not attend his routine interview because he had a job interview at the same time. He was told that he would lose his benefits, which seems absolutely inexplicable. There was also someone on the door, almost a bouncer, who stopped him getting past to explain the situation to someone who might have been a bit more reasonable. I do not know how often that happens, but clearly there are occasions when unwise decisions are made.
The other side of the coin is that I have heard evidence, also anecdotal, that some claimants are unco-operative and that, despite repeated requests for documents, attendance or information, still do not comply, and sanctions are only brought in at that stage when nothing else has worked. Perhaps the Minister will refer to that when he responds to the debate.
The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) referred to food banks. From a few cases in which I have met individuals who use food banks and discussed their circumstances with them, I know that they often have debt repayments to make. Their benefits are certainly insufficient for that, because they were never intended for debt repayments. The underlying problem is that people are getting into debt that they cannot manage or cope with, and that is what is leading to the increased use of food banks.
The whole benefits system is, after all, a contract with the taxpayer. We must be fair both to the taxpayer and to claimants. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) referred to the compliance system under universal credit, which sounds to me like a great improvement. I support his suggestion, if it is at all possible to implement it, to improve the situation for claimants and the taxpayer.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
No one disputes the fact that there is a place for sanctions in the benefits system, because there has to be a fair way of dealing with the minority of claimants who deliberately and repeatedly fail to comply with requirements. However, I think that everyone would agree that sanctions must be fair, that they must not be unduly harsh or punitive and that they cannot be based on information that is inaccurate or misunderstood. For many people who are sanctioned, their understanding of the regime fails the test.
Ultimately, we all want to get people back into the labour market if they are fit and able and there are jobs for them. Sanctions that are disproportionate and unfair, ironically, will have precisely the opposite effect; they impoverish people and leave them less able to move from welfare to work. The sanctions regime was ramped up in late 2012. As we have heard, the imposition of a sanction means the temporary suspension of jobseeker’s allowance for a minimum of four weeks. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) said, it is different for universal credit, which is “until engagement” plus seven days, which seems a lot fairer. The maximum sanction period is three years. Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, has rightly described that as “excessively harsh”.
I understand that the Government like to see themselves as taking a tough and no-nonsense approach, which implies that large numbers of claimants are really benefit cheats, but the fact is that, in my constituency and many others, overly harsh sanctions mean that families are going without essentials. A minimum of four weeks without benefits can lead to desperate measures, and many of my constituents are visiting food banks for the first time. I have evidence of that. Three advisers from my local citizens advice bureau were recently offered employment by the council on the welfare support desk in Wigan Life Centre. During February and March, those three workers assessed 560 applications for food bank parcels as genuine. Of those, 130—in only two months—were identified as stemming solely from the application of a benefit sanction. Ironically, I think that those were the lucky ones. They were not like the young man with learning difficulties who came to see me in my constituency office. He had been eating out of bins for three weeks because he did not understand the letter he received and thought that his benefits had been taken off him permanently. He had got the letter too late to attend the interview.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) that the sanctions are also counter-productive. Disproportionately long sanctions create barriers to the search for work. The four-week minimum means that claimants spend more time dealing with acute needs, such as obtaining food and heating, than looking for a job. Bureau advisers have reported to me that they see many clients who have been sanctioned spending a significant amount of time seeking alternative means to pay for essentials, such as food and utilities. Indeed, they are being forced into the hands of payday lenders, so they are getting into debt. As the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) said, benefits are not intended to pay debts.
Since the changes of late 2012, the number of people being sanctioned has soared. After the implementation of the new sanctions system in October 2012, there was an 11% rise in sanctions for jobseekers. The most recent full-year data show a 24% year-on-year rise in the number of sanctions for jobseekers. For ESA, the whole year shows an increase of 156%. In the period just after the ESA sanctions regime changed in December 2012, there was a 98% increase. That is a huge increase, and I cannot believe that that number of people deliberately did not engage with the system.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South that we need to review the effectiveness of the sanctions regime. If the sanctions are getting more onerous, why are more people being caught by them? Surely we would expect harsher punishments to bring people into line and lessen infractions, if indeed their behaviour is deliberate. What better evidence is there that these reforms are being driven by cost-cutting targets and have little to do with helping people to find work? Jobcentre staff are incentivised to get people off the dole; they should be rewarded for getting people back into employment.
There would be more faith in the sanctions regime if it were based on good decision making and proper assessments of individuals, but all too frequently people cannot comply with it. I was recently given a case by my local citizens advice bureau. A mother attended with her 19-year-old son, who did not engage with the interview. He looked down, and he patently could not read the letters he had received. His mother answered all the questions. Every time he was asked a question, he just looked at his mum for an answer; he clearly could not understand. He lives at home with his parents. In July 2013, he applied for universal credit, which he was awarded. However, he did not attend his interview in September, or his seven other interviews, so he got a low-level sanction. On 9 December, he got a medium-level sanction. In all this time, his mum had not seen the letters. He obviously could not read them and did not understand what was going on.
Eventually, his mum found the letters, inquired of the jobcentre what was going on, and found that her son had been sanctioned for 891 days. She accompanied him to interviews in February and March but was told that nothing could be done about lifting the sanctions. He went to my local citizens advice bureau, which is in touch with the specialist support unit to establish whether this is consistent with regulations and whether anything can be done. It is obvious that the people at Jobcentre Plus did not have the time to assess this young man, to put it generously, and did not see that he would not understand any of the sanctions letters or requirements on complying for work.
There is plenty of other evidence of poor communication. In Wigan, a significant number of ESA recipients applying for food parcels have complained that the letters notifying them of the work capability assessment were not received until after the date of the assessment, causing them to be sanctioned. Others have said that they could not attend because they had a hospital appointment and only learned of the sanction when their JSA failed to arrive.
We clearly need a better understanding of the individual needs of claimants. If we are going to apply this sort of regime, Jobcentre Plus staff need to have the time and the ability to assess the people who are applying for benefits and ensure that the sanctions are fair. There are two ways of encouraging people into work—the carrot and the stick. It does not seem fair that on many occasions the wealthy get the carrot of tax cuts and the people on benefits get the stick of unduly harsh sanctions.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Nearly 1 million people have had their benefits stopped—the highest number since jobseeker’s allowance was introduced in 1996—but 58% of those who appealed their sanctions won. That is what this debate is about.
Labour Members do not say that people should not be sanctioned, but we do say that sanctions should be fair. They should be imposed only when claimants wilfully do not do everything that they have agreed to do—unlike the young man I recently met at a protest against Atos, who was like so many people on benefits. He wanted to work, but had suffered a rugby injury and was on ESA. He has worked in construction and had had his own window cleaning company that employed two other people. He went to university but then got his rugby injury, which triggered chronic migraines. He also got depression. The medics are currently trying to work out whether the migraines cause the depression or the depression causes the migraines.
The young man was sacked from his last job because he had three days off with a migraine. He went on to ESA for three months, after which he was sent for another assessment. He contacted Atos to say that he could not attend because he was in hospital, but he was still sanctioned. He appealed, and Atos actually apologised. He was told that he would not have to have another assessment for at least a month, but was then immediately sent for more assessments. He gave up and went on to JSA, but not before he had attempted suicide. He suffers from a double whammy: as a 30-year-old, he has had to give up his flat because he is entitled only to the shared room rate. We should not be treating ill and disabled people in this way.
After pressure from Labour Members, the Government agreed to arrange for an independent inquiry into benefits sanctions. When will we see its report? I, for one, am disgusted by the way in which sanctions are being applied unfairly, without good cause, and with no humanity. I wonder how Mr Oakley, who is conducting the inquiry, is going to produce the report, given that when my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) asked how many benefit claimants had been sanctioned for different periods of time, the Minister—not this Minister but the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey)—replied that the information was not readily available and it would cost too much to get it.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is not just the number of sanctions but their length? The minimum period is four weeks, so those who are sanctioned spend too much of their time trying to deal with the acute financial problems that that causes rather than looking for work, which might be the purpose of the sanctions in the first place.
Julie Hilling
Absolutely; I agree. If the purpose of a sanction is to give somebody a bit of a shock—to say, “Look, you need to comply with the things that the Department is asking you to do”—then it does not need to be four weeks long, a year long, or three years long. We need action to get the person to comply with what they need to do; we do not need them starving, becoming homeless and living in the cold. As my right hon. Friend says, those things do not allow them productively to seek work.
I am a parliamentary patron of the YMCA, which has undertaken research and produced a report called “Feeling the Benefits”. The YMCA found that in the first seven months after the reforms of October 2012, more than a quarter of a million young people were sanctioned—1,000 every day. It also reported that there has been a significant increase in the number of vulnerable young people being sanctioned, detrimentally affecting their physical and mental well-being. Eighty-four per cent. of the young people surveyed reported that they had had to cut back on or go without food. They said things like: “I didn’t cope, I had no one.” Another said: “It’s how long they left me with no money, knowing I was pregnant and had to buy my own food.” Another said: “I was unable to eat and it was lucky that the YMCA could help.” Another said: “You have a much more negative attitude to life as a whole.” Another said: “It cost me my home and food.” Another said: “I went three months living on food parcels, which is really degrading because you lose all your dignity. It’s not just physically hard, it’s mentally hard.”
The YMCA reported that sanctions, instead of helping those young people get into work, actually made it harder. One said: “It stopped me searching for work as I had no money to get to different employers.” Another said, most tellingly: “My focus turned to survival rather than gaining employment.” The young people accepted the need for sanctions for those not doing what is required of them, but all believed that they had to be fairly applied. Three quarters of them felt that the way in which sanctions were currently being applied was not fair. They believed that there were three main areas where communication had failed: they were not given enough support on how they could avoid being sanctioned, an explanation of why they had been sanctioned or practical advice on what they could do once they had been.
The YMCA is calling on the Government to do a number of things, including ensuring that key information on the welfare system is better tailored and communicated to young people. It says that a claimant should have an individual as a single point of contact within their local Jobcentre Plus, who should remain constant wherever a claimant is in the system—whether on a work programme, work experience or wherever.
The YMCA also proposes that young people should receive a clear explanation, in writing and face to face, of why they have been sanctioned, and that claimants who are homeless or in emergency accommodation should be exempt from the same job search rules until they have found somewhere to live. It seems an absolute nonsense that we expect someone who is living on the streets to apply for so many jobs per day when what we need to do is get them into accommodation and make sure they are feeding themselves properly, and then deal with the issue of work. It is a hierarchy of needs—first of all, people need food, water and somewhere to live.
The YMCA has also proposed that where claimants are living in supported accommodation, as well as providing the claimants themselves with information about a sanction, Jobcentre Plus should provide that information to the supported housing provider. There is an absolute logic there: if a young person who is in difficulty and is being supported is suddenly sanctioned and so is no longer able to pay their rent, they run the risk of falling out even of the supported system.
The YMCA also proposes that a duty be placed on Jobcentre Plus to provide people being sanctioned with a suitable notice period and an opportunity to have the decision reconsidered prior to removing any benefit payments. I will go on to talk about cases in which, if a proper review had been done in the first place, the sanction would never had been applied and people would not have been left in dire circumstances with no money for a period of time. I hope the Minister will take the time to read the YMCA’s report and will take action on its contents.
I recently met senior officers in my local Jobcentre Plus. We had a very productive discussion about the difficulties faced by many people and the particular difficulties faced by those whose lives are most chaotic. But as soon as I asked about sanctions, the atmosphere absolutely changed. I asked about targets, and they said that there were definitely no targets—I accept that. However, they then went on to talk about the performance management of Jobcentre Plus staff. An adviser will be spoken to if they do not refer claimants for sanctions often enough. That means the adviser cannot exercise common sense or accept explanations for why a claimant is a few moments late or has been unable to attend their interview that the rest of us would see as perfectly acceptable. The claimant potentially loses benefits immediately until the decision maker either accepts the reasons or applies a sanction. That could push the claimant into debt, leaving them with no food or money for rent, and getting them into difficulty with their housing.
I have been told that people have been given an appointment on a Sunday and have then been told that they should have realised that the appointment was for a day on which the jobcentre would not be open. They have therefore had their benefits suspended because they were not able to sign on and see their adviser—on a Sunday. There are cases of people who have applied for more jobs than are required but because they did so through a job club or through their own initiative rather than applying on universal job match the jobs were not counted and the claimants were sanctioned.
The young man who is now a volunteer in my office was given a job advert once as he was leaving the jobcentre and was told that he may like to apply for the job. The first line of the job description asked for a qualification that he did not have so he did not apply for it. He was honest: the next week he went in and said—even though he could have fibbed and said that he had applied for the job, as the jobcentre staff would not have known—that he had not applied for it and gave his reasons why. They sanctioned him, even though he had applied for more jobs than he needed to.
Another case is that of Peter, who was sent to a Work programme provider. He turned up when he was told to but was told that the programme did not exist and that he should go home. He went back to the jobcentre and explained the situation. The work provider backed up his story, but he was still sanctioned for four weeks, because the provider and the jobcentre could not get their story straight.
I am aware that you are asking me to wind up, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I have many more cases that I would love to tell the House about—really dire, terrible cases, in which my constituents have been wrongly treated and, it seems to me, punished simply for trying to do the right thing. One thing I would say is that if the jobcentre would only talk to the person, find out what had happened and why, start from a point of believing their story and carry out the investigation before they applied the sanctions, we would not have people living in such misery.
Although I hate sanctions, I accept that some people do not engage or do the things that they are called on to do to receive benefits. I accept that those people should face sanctions, but those sanctions have to be based on common sense. If someone is in hospital or at a job interview, or is held up by a traffic accident, they should not have their benefits cut off. If they cannot read, are ill on the day of the appointment or are given the wrong day by the jobcentre they should not be left with no money to feed themselves and their family. The current sanction regime is not fair, is not working properly and needs to be changed.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the Members on both sides of the House who secured today’s debate. Like other Members who have spoken today, I have been disturbed by the surge in constituents coming to me because they have been sanctioned in circumstances they consider unfair, and I am profoundly concerned about the way in which the new sanctions regime is working in practice. There is a broad consensus that there is a role for sanctions in those cases where an individual is determined not to comply with requirements, but sanctions need to be proportionate, consistently and properly applied and, if they are to act as any kind of deterrent, the last resort, not the first recourse. It is clear to me from what we have already heard today, from cases in my own constituency and from the evidence collected by Citizens Advice Scotland that the sanctions regime is not functioning as it should. In the time available, I will focus on just a few of the most pertinent issues.
The first is that sanctions are being applied in ways that are not always proportionate to the infringement, and do not adequately take into account claimants’ personal circumstances. Like the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson), I have personal knowledge of a case in which a claimant was sanctioned because they were attending a job interview at the time when they were supposed be at the jobcentre appointment. Citizens Advice has highlighted a string of similar cases. That is just nonsense—it is absolutely crazy. There are also instances of people being sanctioned who had hospital appointments or family funerals to attend. Most of us in work would expect our employer to be flexible about allowing leave of absence in such circumstances; it is only reasonable to allow jobseekers a similar degree of flexibility to deal with unavoidable personal circumstances such as hospital appointments or illness.
Some of my biggest concerns are about people who are living with health conditions or disabilities. Mental health problems or mild learning disabilities in particular are sometimes invisible—indeed, they might not even be diagnosed—but they can play a huge role in why someone struggles to find and stay in work, or why they may be struggling to comply with jobseeking requirements. I have encountered a number of people sanctioned who have low levels of comprehension, and in some cases cognitive impairment and very limited literacy. They have not deliberately flouted requirements; they have failed to understand them. It has been hard for my staff to explain the situation to them and it is very difficult for them to comply with what is expected of them.
Frankly, some of the people I have dealt with are very vulnerable individuals. Sanctioning has only exacerbated that vulnerability, in some cases pushing people into severe hardship and reliance on assistance from local food banks. Food bank use has soared in my constituency, which is one of the wealthiest parts of Scotland, and one of the main drivers of that has been the malfunctioning of the sanctions regime. We need to do a much better job of identifying disabled people, including those with mental health problems and learning disabilities, and should make sure not just that they have the necessary support to find suitable employment but that communication with them takes account of their ability to comprehend and process the information they are getting, and takes account of their health.
Another major concern that has not been dwelt on today relates to the challenges of job searching in rural areas. I am very fortunate to represent an area where unemployment is among the lowest in Scotland, but it is also one of the most rural parts of Scotland, with a very high proportion of people living in the countryside or in small villages. Public transport is very limited and there is a shortage of affordable housing. Those on the lowest incomes, who have the least choice about where they live, often find themselves in the most rural parts, where both the rents and the demand for housing tend to be lower. They may or may not have access to a bus service, but if they do it is likely to be fairly infrequent, there may be no direct route to where they have to attend interviews, and fares are really expensive. As of next week, a day bus ticket will be £7.70 for the Buchan area and £9 for Banffshire. For somebody living on benefits, that is a huge proportion of their spending power—money that they really need to be spending on heating, food and other essentials of daily life. If we expect people to attend interviews some distance from their homes, we need to understand that it could be expensive and difficult for them to do that.
Many parts of my constituency do not have broadband access, and even where it is available it costs significantly more than comparable services in urban areas. That makes it very difficult for claimants: it means they may have to travel to a public library to do even the most rudimentary job search. That costs them a lot of money—money that they just do not have. Citizens Advice Scotland has highlighted cases where sanctions have been applied to people in rural areas who then find themselves with no money to enable them to travel to jobcentres or libraries, thus compounding their original offence and leaving them facing further sanction. That seems entirely counter-productive and it compounds the rural isolation and poverty already faced by people on very low incomes.
The sanctions regime is not working as it should. There is significant evidence of sanctions being applied incorrectly, inconsistently, inappropriately and disproportionately. Looking ahead to the introduction of universal credit and a single household payment, I am worried about the significant potential for the situation to get a lot worse. Whole families could be pushed unnecessarily into severe hardship and destitution by all the extra costs and unintended consequences. Unless we deal with these problems now, we will store up much greater problems for the future, so I urge the Government to look at their guidance, review it and make sure that their regime is actually fit for purpose.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I wonder whether it is a sign of the times that more Members sat in the Chamber to debate badgers than are present to debate the poor and the vulnerable.
I will begin by placing on the record my belief that personal responsibility and compliance are extremely important for individuals seeking employment. However, the current regime seeks to penalise those who offer responsibility but are, for various reasons, disproportionately sanctioned. In many cases, that means abject poverty not just for them, but for the people around them. I am totally convinced that this period in our history will be looked at by generations to come with horror. It is possible that people will think that MPs acted in a barbaric fashion. We are living through an era in which being disabled, poor or disfranchised basically attracts state punishment rather than help. That is a sad indictment of these times.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is it not incumbent on Members to look on those who are vulnerable and on the margins with respect and to offer them support rather than condemnation and punishment?
Ian Lavery
Absolutely. This year is the 180th anniversary of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. The Poor Law contained some incredibly harsh ideas, but they seem to have found fertile ground and taken seed among a new generation of coalition MPs. The Act was based on a royal commission that was largely the work of Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick and that took some extreme yet strikingly familiar views. One was that poverty was essentially caused by the individual, rather than by the economic and social conditions. It was therefore claimed that the pauper claimed relief regardless of his merits; that large families got the most, which encouraged irresponsible marriages; that women claimed relief for illegitimate children, which encouraged immorality; and that labourers had no incentive to work. It was recommended that workhouse conditions should be less desirable than those of an independent labourer of the lowest class. It was a fight to the bottom. There was no attempt 180 years ago to improve the working conditions of the lowest class. They wanted people to work in a worse position, below even that of the lowest of the working class. That attitude pervades today. Mark Twain once said:
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
Have we really regressed almost 200 years socially?
Undoubtedly, welfare reform is causing misery for people up and down the country. It is an ideological crusade to shrink the state, led by people who I believe simply do not care about what happens to the individuals or the consequences for communities as a whole. The approach of the Department for Work and Pensions to sanctions has been characterised by the chaotic approach to universal credit and the personal independence payment. Statistics showing that nearly 60% of decisions on sanctions have been overturned have now been removed from the DWP website. This is a regime that is targeting the most vulnerable people in our society—the very people, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) correctly says, we should be helping.
Even in the worst cases of non-compliance with the DWP rules, who actually suffers when sanctions are applied? When crimes under the law are committed, it is the perpetrator who is punished, but when DWP rules are broken, the people around that person are also punished. No thought is given to the family, the partner or anybody else associated with the individual being sanctioned. It may well be that it is one person who is sanctioned, but it results in a broad swipe at everyone in a household, family or circle of friends who have the obligation of the state transferred to them. The situation has been described as torture by hunger. Should this be happening in a civilised society? Should we be engaging in sanctioning people and forcing them to go to food banks? These are people who generally need assistance in life. The reality is that for every person sanctioned for the things the right-wing press prints on its front pages, there are thousands more who are forced into degradation as the victims of circumstance, officious advisers and cruel policy.
Let me describe one or two cases. A man in my constituency visited my offices in desperate need. He had been sanctioned after missing an appointment with a work training provider. He had a problem with his heart and he had had to visit hospital—he was sanctioned for being in hospital. The sanction was later overturned, but not before he was driven almost to starvation and the local food bank after visiting my office in a desperate state. All he had eaten for three days was field mushrooms and eggs borrowed from a neighbour. I am not sure that anyone in this House wants to see that sort of thing happen. As politicians, that is not what we are here to do.
The benefits of a man from the south-east who had been blind since birth were stopped because he was not replying to letters. The DWP was failing to send him letters in Braille or any other accessible format. He did not reply because he did not even know he had them. This man had worked for most of his life, but because of the DWP’s error he was forced to turn to a payday loan to survive. The chaotic system forced him into hunger and poverty.
So out of control is the situation that a website now documents the cruel, arbitrary and ridiculous reasons why people have had their benefits stopped. I urge hon. Members to look at it, but I have some examples:
“You get a job interview. It’s at the same time as your job centre appointment, so you reschedule the job centre. You attend your rearranged appointment and then get a letter saying your benefits will be stopped because going to a job interview isn’t a good enough reason to miss an appointment.”
Another example is:
“You get a job that starts in two weeks time. You don’t look for work while you are waiting for the job to start. You’re sanctioned.”
How ridiculous and how absurd is this system?
“You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week.”
It is an outrageous situation.
There is of course a clear link between benefit delays or changes and people turning to food banks. As many hon. Members have mentioned, more than 650,000 people now use food banks, and there is a strong link between that and benefit sanctioning. Serious questions need to be asked about whether people are being deliberately sanctioned to massage the employment figures, because at any one time 100,000 people may be in the churn of those sanctioned. At such a time, they are not figures in the unemployment statistics; they are cases in a fiddling of the unemployment statistics. The Minister may wish to target that point.
In my last minute, I want to mention the pressure on staff in DWP offices. The failure to impose enough sanctions means that many of them receive performance improvement plans or notices to improve, which might ultimately result in their losing their employment.
In conclusion, as a society, we will be judged harshly by history for punishing the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable, as well as for not doing enough to stop the determined drive of Government Members to drag us back to the Poor Law of 1834, the shameful establishing of IDS UK—in dire straits.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on his initiative, as a result of which we have had a very interesting debate.
The debate raises this question: what has become of Jobcentre Plus? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) has just described, those who work in jobcentres say that they are under enormous pressure to sanction people’s benefits. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton referred to the “toxic” culture in Jobcentre Plus. People who depend on it for help say that too often its main interest is now in catching them out.
As we have heard, sanctions are vital to the system. They encourage effective jobsearch, and a sound rationale for them was set out in Professor Paul Gregg’s report for the Government in 2008. They featured in the new deal and the future jobs fund, and we have made it clear that they will also feature in our compulsory jobs guarantee. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) argued, sanctions need to be applied fairly and proportionately. Claimants must understand their responsibilities and the consequences of not meeting them. That is not the case at the moment, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) correctly pointed out. The Child Poverty Action Group has referred to the frequent very vague letters from jobcentres, which people cannot understand, telling them what they are supposed to have done or not done. The Work and Pensions Committee report in January set out an approach to sanctions that makes a great deal of sense, and I must say that I was disappointed by the quite negative tone of the Government’s response.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) was right to remind the House, as other hon. Members have done, that rocketing benefits sanctions have fuelled the extraordinary growth in food bank demand. Volunteers say that a lot of people at food banks have no idea why they have been sanctioned. We might expect that Ministers, after hearing that from the Trussell Trust, would want to find out what is going on. Instead, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has refused to meet the Trussell Trust and, quite bizarrely, has accused it of having a political agenda. The Trussell Trust therefore had to make do with meeting the Prime Minister. It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the Select Committee recommendation that the Department should compile data on the number of signposts to food banks it is making has been rejected.
The first that some people know about a sanction is when they find out that there is no money in their bank account. Sanctions are supposed to incentivise people to undertake fruitful jobsearch, but if people do not know which rule they have broken and they are not told, a sanction cannot incentivise them. What has gone wrong?
Last week, at the invitation of Tesco, I visited its new store in Woolwich. The company personnel director told me that of the 400 staff the store had recruited when it opened in 2012, 100 had been chosen who had previously been unemployed. She introduced me to four of them, and it was frankly inspiring to hear how the opportunity to work was changing their lives and to hear how they are now optimistic about their prospects.
I took the opportunity to ask the four members of staff about their experience of Jobcentre Plus. Their answers were uniformly depressing. They said that advisers wanted to catch them out and to come up with reasons for imposing a sanction. One of them told me as a matter of fact that Jobcentre Plus advisers have to impose eight sanctions per month. He might have a point, because I understand that eight sanctions per month is regarded as the norm for an adviser. The Minister will correct me if that figure is wrong, but I think that it is right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) pointed out, the number of sanctions issued by each adviser features in their regular appraisals. It is therefore not surprising that jobseekers get the impression that advisers have such a target. Indeed, I suspect that jobseekers are probably quite close to the truth about what is going on.
The reputation of Jobcentre Plus is now terribly poor. Examples such as the one given by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson), make it clear why that is the case, and there are too many examples like those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck.
John Healey
My right hon. Friend is talking about the disincentives in the system that lead to more sanctions. Does he agree that one problem may be that the single measure of performance in Jobcentre Plus is the benefits off-flow, and that anyone sanctioned is counted in that way, even though they are not coming off benefits to get into work?
Stephen Timms
I agree. There are several problems with the benefits off-flow measure, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that that is one of them. Citizens Advice has made that point in the briefing for this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) drew my attention to a report from West Dunbartonshire citizens advice bureau called “Unjust and Uncaring: A report on conditionality and benefits sanctions and their impact on clients”, which was published just a few weeks ago. It is full of depressing examples of the kind that we have heard in this debate.
Community Links works in my constituency in east London. It produced a policy briefing on sanctions in January, which states:
“There is a culture of fear and misunderstanding surrounding sanctions: some people are afraid of making tiny mistakes such as being one minute late for a meeting.”
The briefing includes a case study of Rita, a young and strongly work-oriented woman who was employed for six years until being made redundant. She has a degree in journalism and aspires to a career, not just to a job. She was sanctioned for non-attendance at a meeting, even though she had agreed with her jobcentre adviser to participate in work experience elsewhere. We have heard a number of examples of that. She was also incorrectly sanctioned for missing a meeting while at a pre-arranged hospital appointment, even though she had informed her adviser in the official way. She avoided that sanction, but only by insisting on speaking to the line manager at the jobcentre. One sanction meant that she did not have enough money to attend a job interview. She blames the jobcentre directly for preventing her from potentially getting a job.
Rita made the following comments:
“I had times when I literally had no food and no gas. I just lay in my bed looking at the walls. I couldn’t travel or make any calls. I couldn’t even afford to get the bus to sign-on, but I knew that if I didn’t go I’d be suspended again. It’s like a vicious cycle. I turned up at the Jobcentre actually hungry. I hadn’t eaten for two days and I was scared that if I was five minutes late they would suspend me again.”
She was present on Monday this week at the launch at Church House of Community Links’ troubling study “Tipping the balance?” on the cumulative impact of welfare reform in Newham.
The evidence that we have heard in this debate makes it clear that there is a serious problem. A year ago, I asked a parliamentary question:
“what was the total amount of benefit withheld as a result of benefit sanctions in each of the last four years.”—[Official Report, 25 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 986W.]
The answer told me that in 2009-10, £11 million was withheld and that just in the first six months of 2012-13, £60 million was withheld. In cash terms, that is more than a tenfold rise.
I have since requested an updated answer. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), told me in an answer in February:
“The information is not available in the format requested. Trends in sanctions are better understood” —[Official Report, 5 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 268W.]—
in some other way. It is not clear to me why the information was available a year ago, but is not available now. It is not the job of the Minister to tell us what questions she would like us to ask; Ministers are required to answer the questions that we do ask. I tabled the question again yesterday and I ask the Minister here today who is much more reasonable in these respects, to have a word with the right hon. lady and ask her this time to answer the question that she is asked.
A very large number of sanctions are overturned on appeal. Those sanctions should not have been imposed in the first place. The Policy Exchange report, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton mentioned, said:
“After reconsideration and/or appeal, 29% of those who receive their first ‘lower’ tier sanction have it overturned, meaning around 5,600 of them a month are wrongly sanctioned.”
In February, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, DWP statistics showed an appeal success rate of nearly 60%. Those statistics are gone from the Department’s website and have not yet come back corrected. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what the correct figure is and when the figures, having been corrected, will be republished.
Last summer, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West reminded us, the Opposition forced the Government to set up a review of sanctions. Ministers appointed Matthew Oakley to carry it out, although they drew up rather narrow terms of reference. I have appreciated the opportunity to discuss the issues with Mr Oakley, who has set about his task with thoroughness and diligence. I hope that his report, when we see it in a few weeks’ time, will lead to important improvements. However, it is very disappointing that today’s Government response to the January Select Committee report reneges on the commitment to a further wider review.
The Policy Exchange report says:
“we recommend a series of cumulative increases in sanction duration for those who consistently fail to comply with the conditionality regime. This reflects an aim to make sanctions less punitive for those who may have made genuine mistakes”.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton said, that comes from the ideological standpoint of the Minister’s coalition partners. I hope that he will indicate whether he accepts that it is a helpful direction of travel.
Sanctions by Jobcentre Plus have become far more punitive. They explain a large part of the explosion in food bank demand. Many people have no idea why they have been sanctioned. It is agreed across the political spectrum that the system has gone wrong, as we have heard in this debate. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he understands the problem and that he intends to do something about it.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the Members who supported him on securing this debate. This has been a worthwhile discussion and a number of important issues have been raised to which I will try to respond in the brief time available to me.
I think that there might be more common ground between the Government and the Opposition than has been apparent. It is also the Government’s position, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members said, that we want a sanctions system that works and that is effective, proportionate and well communicated to claimants. We are united on that. I was struck during the debate by the overwhelming view—although not the unanimous view, because there was at least one exception—that sanctions have a part to play in the system. Those who sign on and claim benefit take on responsibilities. If those responsibilities are to mean anything, there have to be consequences for not adhering to them.
At the outset, it might be worth my setting out the claimant commitment, which is now central to the benefit system and to the process of rights and responsibilities. People who sign on for jobseeker’s allowance now go through the claimant commitment. When they have a first interview with a work coach, the coach reviews their circumstances and capabilities—that relates to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford)—and completes the “My Jobseekers Profile” to capture key information. Reflecting on that, the coach sets out the requirements that the claimant must meet to be entitled to JSA, ensuring that those are right for the individual. That is how the system is intended to work. The work coach must take account of any health conditions, disabilities or caring responsibilities. Those requirements are recorded in the claimant commitment, together with a clear explanation of the consequences of any failure to comply. The commitment must be agreed by the claimant.
The coach then works with the individual to help them construct a detailed plan that sets out what they will do each week to meet their requirements. The process is designed to ensure that our expectations and requirements are reasonable, and that the claimant understands them. It is intended to provide claimants with the support that they need to establish an effective plan of action that, if followed, will ensure that they comply and that they never face a sanction. That is what the Government are trying to achieve. We do not want to sanction anybody. Clearly, there are times when people do not fulfil their requirements. When sanctions are imposed, there are mechanisms in place for challenging them. They can be overturned when people have a good reason why they should be.
I want to clarify some of the points that were raised in the debate. First, Members asked whether 60% of JSA sanctions were overturned. As has been said, the figures appeared, but there was an error in them and they were withdrawn. Revised figures are being prepared, in line with the code of practice for official statistics. Those will be presented as soon as possible. To give the House an order of magnitude, the latest official statistics, which have been published separately by the Ministry of Justice, which deals with the appeals, show that in the third quarter of 2012-13 not 60% but 17% of JSA disputes heard by the tribunal service resulted in a decision in favour of the claimant. That provides a slightly different perspective.
Steve Webb
I will not for now, because I only have a short period and I want to respond to all the points that Members have made. [Interruption.] It was a mistake. The hon. Gentleman asks why it was 60%. There was a miscoding. That was not the correct figure.
It is important that the sanctions regime is evaluated. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for his positive comments on the work that is being done by Matthew Oakley, which is looking specifically at the sanctions regime. It is considering communications to claimants. A number of hon. Members have stated that for sanctions to be effective we must communicate to people what has happened to them and why. I accept that entirely, and if right hon. and hon. Members have examples—some of which they cited during the debate—the Employment Minister would be pleased to receive details of individual cases where the processes that we want to work are not working.
To return to the evaluation, Matthew Oakley will soon complete his report. It will come to the Department and we will respond positively and constructively. We will then publish not only our response but the independent findings of the reviewers in full. There is no secrecy about that; it will be in the public domain, and rightly so, together with the actions we are taking. That is not the only evaluation. We have published a range of evidence, including the Jobcentre Plus offer evaluation and the universal credit customer survey, which provide information about customer awareness of sanctions and the effectiveness of the regime in encouraging compliance. We also monitor the use of sanctions and publish quarterly statistics. In a sense, we could have a second and third review and all the rest, but the focus is on seeing what the first independent reviewer says and publicly responding constructively to that, making changes, publishing evidence, monitoring and taking action, rather than on starting another review with another reviewer for perhaps six or nine months, or whatever, so that it is Christmas before things change. We want to get on with learning from these reviews.
The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who is not in the Chamber at the moment, asked about sanctions for employment and support allowance, and it is important to stress the low level of ESA sanctions. At any point, fewer than 0.5% of individuals in the work-related activity group are sanctioned, so although volumes have increased because the number of people on ESA has gone up, that rate remains low. It is not the case that people on ESA are being sanctioned all over the place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) mentioned the link to housing benefit—I felt a certain amount of nostalgia when he explained to the House where Sandwell is, because that is where I was born and went to school. He made the important point that if someone is sanctioned on jobseeker’s allowance, that should not lead to the loss of housing benefit. Although income-related JSA passports to housing benefit, housing benefit is available on the basis of low income and not necessarily on whether someone satisfies the requirements for JSA. We entirely accept that we must ensure that people are not incorrectly thrown off housing benefit because their JSA has been sanctioned in some way, and we are considering that issue as part of the Oakley review. It is not our intention for people to lose their housing benefit.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan raised an interesting question of whether, for example, someone who is sanctioned under universal credit risks losing the whole household payment. Funnily enough, that problem is sorted out under universal credit, because instead of having JSA here and housing benefit there, and the JSA computer telling the council that someone is not on JSA any more and their housing benefit stopping, if it is all one payment the sanction is just to the personal allowance bit and housing help remains unaffected. It will be better under universal credit.
I was pleased to hear from a number of hon. Members that the universal sanctions regime is attractive and responds so that when people correct whatever caused the sanction, in many cases that sanction will stop. I will pass to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Employment Minister the view of a number of Members in this debate that the sooner we move forward with the universal credit sanction regime, the better. I am encouraged by that.
On the proportionality of sanctions, there has not been much discussion about the detail of the higher, middle and lower rates, but since the system was introduced the proportion of claimants sanctioned at the highest level fell markedly after the introduction of the new system. Hardship payments are available—again, that has not been discussed much—at a rate of 60% of the benefit. People may not be aware of that, but where someone has no income it is important to be aware that hardship payments are available at a rate of 60% of benefit.
Steve Webb
I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I want to respond to the points already made.
There was some discussion of targets—this is a bit of a chestnut—and to be categorical, there are no targets for sanctions; that is not the way it works. The point was made that statistics are gathered at jobcentre level and among advisers on their use of the sanctions system, and again the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—I am wrecking her credibility here—made exactly the right point. We want consistency, and we cannot know that we have that if we do not gather data on what individual advisers are doing. If people go to a jobcentre and talk to adviser A or adviser B, and adviser A sanctions everyone who walks through the door and adviser B never sanctions anyone, the system is not working.
Steve Webb
No, I will not.
It is not that individual advisers are expected to hit a target or number; we are monitoring because we expect both distribution and consistency. That is what we are trying to do. It should not be interpreted as a target; it is simply about us monitoring what is going on.
A couple of hon. Members suggested that sanctions are about trying to massage the unemployment numbers, which is complete nonsense. Somebody who is looking for work is still counted in the unemployment figures. The figures published every month and headlined on the BBC are the labour force survey numbers, and if people are looking for work, they count as unemployed.
Steve Webb
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue.
A further point missed by a lot of hon. Members is that two thirds of sanctions are not disallowances. Someone’s JSA might be reduced because of a sanction, but they do not come off JSA and still count in the claimant count numbers. Of all the sanction numbers, only a third are disallowances. On the unemployment figures, the JSA numbers have been coming down because of reduced inflows, not because we have been sanctioning people off benefit.
Steve Webb
I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. I have not given way to anybody else, and I hope he will forgive me if I am consistent. [Interruption.] If the House would like me to take the intervention, I will happily do so.
Stephen Timms
I am very grateful to the Minister. Will he confirm, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton said, that sanctions contribute to the benefit off-flow figures, which are the key to incentivising jobcentres and advisers?
Steve Webb
As I say, in two thirds of cases where people are sanctioned, they do not actually flow off JSA. Their JSA claim is regarded as continuing, so only a fraction of those numbers count as coming off benefit. Most people are still on JSA, even though they are sanctioned. It is clearly not the case that this is anything to do with the claim—it patently is not.
I have sought to be as consensual as I can. The right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton made extraordinary remarks about the Chancellor’s approach to the macro-economy. Given that we have record numbers of people in work and record rates of employment, the idea that that is somehow mishandling the economy is extraordinary.
The key point is that we recognise that the sanctions regime needs to be kept under constant review. An independent review is under way. We will publish that and respond to it positively. If right hon. and hon. Members have individual cases they wish to draw to our attention, we are very happy to look at them. I think the House is united in saying: yes people have responsibilities, and yes there are consequences when they do not meet those responsibilities, but we all want to see a sanctions regime that is fair and proportionate. That remains the position of the Government.
Mr Meacher
The Minister talks, in his very earnest way, about the claimant commitment. He does not seem to realise that there is a complete disconnect between how the system is supposed to work and how it is actually working on the ground. We are not talking about a few isolated or exceptional examples. I quoted dozens of cases, as did hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. He needs to take account of the realities, not a dream of what he would like to be real.
The Minister picked up on my remarks about the Chancellor. The most effective way to cut the deficit is not through prolonged austerity and sanctioning, but by expanding the economy and job creation. That is exactly what has been done in the United States, which is now 5% above pre-crash levels. Here, we are 1.5% below pre-crash levels.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) made useful points about the appeal procedure taking far too long and being far too costly. There should be an attempt to combine it with the procedure for universal credit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Select Committee, talked about the very high numbers, contrary to the impression given by the Minister, of people being sanctioned. Some 5%—about 60,000 people—are still being sanctioned per month. The causes of sanctions are often unquestionably trivial, wrong and lacking common-sense discretion. She spoke about the need for another survey—not just the Oakley survey on how the system works—to consider the impact on claimants and whether they are more likely to seek work.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) made the important point that sanctions should be used only as a last resort. That is clearly not the case at the present time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) rightly said that people are impoverished by sanctions and less able to find work, and that they often do not understand the process being imposed on them. DWP staff should be incentivised not for the numbers they sanction, but for the numbers they get back into work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made an eloquent case about how people are not helped to find work, and that finding work becomes harder as a result of sanctions. She gave examples of how sanctions are often applied unfairly, as did the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), who spoke of the system not being fit for purpose, particularly in rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a powerful speech, as always, which made a comparison with how sanctions work and the less eligibility principle of the Victorian poor law. He thought that no attention is being given to the impact on the victim, which is bad enough, but what about the family, the partner and the children who are being made to suffer?
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made a very effective case for comprehensive reform. For all these reasons, I am extremely unconvinced by the Minister’s reply. However hard he was trying to convince us that his heart is in the right place, the results on the ground do not merit that. For all those reasons, I hope the whole House agrees that we need another review. We need a review that considers the impact, severity and targeting of sanctioning, and we need a reduction in the number of cases where it is used.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that there have been many cases of sanctions being wrongfully applied to benefit recipients; and calls on the Government to review the targeting, severity and impact of such sanctions.
Civil Service Reform
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Mr Bernard Jenkin to speak for between 10 and 15 minutes.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Eighth Report from the Public Administration Select Committee, on Truth to power: how Civil Service reform can succeed, HC 74, and the Government response, HC 955, and the First Report from the Liaison Committee, on Civil Service: lacking capacity, HC 884, and the Government response, HC 1216.
I shall be as swift as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to speak about these two reports. The main conclusion of both of them is that our civil service faces challenges that can be addressed only through the establishment of a cross-party commission on the future of the civil service in Parliament.
Let me make clear at the outset that there is far more on which we can agree than disagree. I support many of the current reforms, such as those involving procurement, the work of the Efficiency and Reform Group and innovations in IT and digital government, but who would disagree with the suggestion that reforms such as those, although necessary, are not sufficient? This is not to denigrate Ministers or civil servants; indeed, this is an opportunity for us to thank all civil servants and pay tribute to their dedication and achievements; but when concerns do arise, they all raise questions about accountability, trust—particularly trust between Ministers and officials—and leadership. Those are fundamental, and determine whether reform will succeed or fail.
The civil service is one of the great institutions of state. Under our constitution, the Executive exercises the royal prerogative, and enjoys substantial control over the legislature and appointments to the judiciary. Governments come and go, and, in the absence of a codified constitution or formal separation of powers, it is this body of permanent officials that underpins the constitutional stability of our country. That is why a permanent and impartial civil service was established. The civil service has no separate legal personality: the Crown, Ministers and the civil service are, in law, indivisible. However, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, Parliament rather than the royal prerogative is now the legal source of authority for the management of the civil service, and it therefore falls to Parliament to address the future of the civil service. The only question is how that can best be done.
Some take the view that Ministers need more power, especially power to appoint and dismiss officials, while others believe that any move in that direction challenges the very principle on which the present civil service is founded. These questions should therefore be decided by Parliament, which is the only institution with the legitimacy and authority to do so. We can all agree that reform should be based on cross-party consensus, but that consensus cannot be a private one between Ministers and aspirant Ministers. It should be based on the widest possible range of evidence from those with practical and academic expertise and experience: think-tanks such as the Institute for Public Policy Research, Reform, and the Institute for Government. However, Parliament as a whole should be the guardian of that consensus, which is why any commission on the civil service should be a parliamentary commission.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Over the last 17 years we have been in a unique position, as Ministers in all three main parties have had relatively recent experience of working with the civil service. Would not cashing in on that recent experience—particularly coalition Government Ministers’ experience of interacting with the civil service—be very valuable to the understanding that Parliament can bring to this matter?
Mr Jenkin
I wholly agree. I am extremely grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support for the proposal, and for her indication of willingness to serve on the commission should the House of Commons invite her to do so.
The launch of GovernUp today—to coincide with the debate—by two of the sponsors of the motion is something to celebrate, but it is also further evidence of the urgent need for a commission. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), but I am sure they will agree that too many excellent think-tank reports on the civil service have sunk without trace. Only Parliament can put the necessary authority behind a programme of reform: a parliamentary commission could not be ignored.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
Will the commission’s remit include the Scottish civil service, which after all is the responsibility of the home civil service? It is not clear at the moment where the demarcation lines lie, or, indeed, where accountability lies, especially as there is quite a fevered political atmosphere in Scotland at the moment and it is not always clear that the Scottish civil service is acting with the impartiality one would expect.
Mr Jenkin
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, and I can in fact inform the House that the Public Administration Select Committee is doing something very specifically on the impartiality of the civil service—and we still only have one civil service in the United Kingdom—in respect of the conduct of referendums. I am going to avoid being distracted by that topic, however.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
On a pure point of fact, since 1922 the civil service in Northern Ireland has been separate.
Mr Jenkin
Touché, as they say. I am most grateful for that information. I am sure it would have been in the Government’s evidence to our Committee.
Before I continue, I draw the House’s attention to the names on motion 36 under “Remaining orders and notices” in today’s Order Book. Motion 36 would set a more limited remit than we originally proposed and determine the Commons membership of the commission on the civil service. The other place indicated last week that it would reciprocate and I can inform the House that the former Lord Justice General of Scotland and the former Deputy President of the Supreme Court, Lord Hope of Craighead, has indicated that he would chair this commission if invited to do so. The names of former Secretaries of State, former Ministers and the clear majority of chairs of Select Committees on our motion, along with the support of the other place, represent a real and powerful cross-party consensus that would give civil service reform the impetus and urgency it needs.
As we consider accountability, trust and leadership at the top of Government, it is important to understand what extraordinary demands we place on Ministers and senior officials. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the performance of their Departments, like directors to their shareholders, but unlike in almost any other walk of life they have to rely on people they do not appoint and cannot easily remove. In addition, today’s Ministers feel accountable for a system that has become somewhat unaccountable.
PASC has watched the Government’s policy on the civil service evolve. To start with there was much talk about change in Government but no plan for how change would be led and implemented. In our 2011 report “Change in Government: the agenda for leadership”, PASC recommended that the Government should formulate a comprehensive change programme articulating what the civil service is for. The civil service reform plan of 2012 indicates that the experience of Ministers in Government has had an impact on their thinking about the civil service, but it does not meet our recommendation.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
On the urgency of the task, I note that the date for this commission to report is my birthday, which will be a lovely birthday present, and I also note the juxtaposition of that date with the timing of when this House will be dissolved ahead of a general election. Does having this commission reporting just before the House is dissolved meet my hon. Friend’s desire urgently to address this whole issue?
Mr Jenkin
The alternative is that we put it off. Perhaps the commission could finish more quickly, but these are very large and difficult subjects to deal with. The proposal one hears in the corridors of Westminster is that people want to put this off until after the general election. I suggest we cannot wait and I will come on to that point.
The civil service reform plan was published two years later and most Ministers past and present today still agree that getting things done takes far too long and what is often presented to Ministers or implemented is too late or not of sufficient quality. The Minister for the Cabinet Office himself told us there had even been examples of “deliberate obstruction” of ministerial decisions by officials. My right hon. Friend has also described civil servants as:
“Fabulous...Able, bright, energetic, ambitious to change the world.”
I am sure he would agree that no one joins the civil service to block Ministers or Government policy. People join it with the best of intentions and motivations, to serve the country, so why would Ministers feel that those same civil servants are blocking or frustrating their decisions, or not giving truth to power? Why would officials feel that that was the right or only way to act?
We do not need to rehearse examples of recent Whitehall failures, but we do need to ask why they occur and how Whitehall can learn from them. What are the common factors? We all agree that there is too much churn at the top in Whitehall, leading to discontinuity and loss of experience. How did it get like that? Problems such as a lack of key skills and competences are far from new, so we must also ask why, after repeated efforts to reform Whitehall in the conventional way over the past few decades, the same problems persist. The hardest thing to reform in any organisation is people’s attitudes and behaviour, yet there is little reference to attitudes or behaviour in the civil service reform plan, even though they should be the primary consideration.
There has been much attempted reform over the years, focusing on organisation and skills, but those leading change need to understand why people behave as they do. Unless they can change that, the job titles might change, but few will change how they work. Indeed, much of Whitehall is fatigued by reform. Many feel they have done all they can to embrace change but have become cynical and learned how to keep their heads down until the latest initiatives pass by. I think that Ministers refer to that as the “bias to inertia”—a prevalent attitude and a common behaviour that together militate against risk taking and undermine accountability.
When we speak of accountability, it is not simply a question of forcing obedience to ministerial orders so that instructions are carried out more directly, or finding who to blame when things go wrong. Accountability is much more about trust: not just about trusting people to take responsibility for carrying out their tasks and using their judgment, but about those people in turn trusting that the problems they face will be taken seriously, now and in the future, by those to whom they are accountable. Accountability and trust depend on shared understanding—it is a two-way street. Within that framework, people become willing to take responsibility and to be held to account. And when things get difficult and mistakes are made, as always happens, openness and trust become even more essential if there is to be learning and improvement.
This is the only way to improve accountability to Parliament and to citizens, and to avoid repeating mistakes. We need to analyse what accountability feels like in Whitehall today, given today’s intense pressures of the 24/7 media, freedom of information and more active Select Committees, and then to imagine what it should feel like. What, if any, change can be achieved unless we identify what attitudes and behaviour destroy trust? We need to identify those attitudes and develop a plan to change them. We do not have time to wait for attitudes to change. Far too many good people have got fed up with waiting, and they just leave. Also, far too much money is being wasted. As the Institute for Government pointed out this week, the spending challenge in the next Parliament will be much harder than in this one.
Another point on which all four signatories to today’s motion agree is that these challenges cannot be fixed by Whitehall from within. That is not to disparage the present Whitehall leadership. No organisation facing this kind of challenge can change without external analysis that is both independent and, in this case, democratically accountable. The lack of such analysis is the reason other reforms have failed. A sustained change in attitudes and behaviour has to be initiated by a renewed, united and determined leadership of Ministers and officials that encourages mutual understanding and co-operation and is enthusiastic to learn from external scrutiny and analysis.
This will mean Whitehall’s leaders listening and learning to develop new skills. Ministers and officials are so pressed by the immediate economic, political and international issues that they will surely need external support and scrutiny to achieve this. Of course, some will find this difficult to accept, but what is the alternative?
The remit proposed in motion 36, endorsed by the Public Administration Committee and the Liaison Committee, concentrates on the key issues: accountability, trust and leadership. I am pleased that the proposed parliamentary commission commands widespread and respected support. Professor Lord Norton of Louth, a leading constitutional academic, told my Committee that he supports a “full-scale proper review”. The Government’s lead non-executive director, Lord Browne of Madingley, said that such a review is “long overdue”. He also said that
“the biggest single obstacle to progress in government”—
was—
“the question of organisational learning, in particular from experiences of failure.”
He made the key point that
“stories of failure... are the only powerful mechanism for learning.”
Jonathan Powell, the former chief of staff to Tony Blair, told us that without a commission
“we will lose opportunities to be better governed and to get more stuff done”.
We understand why Ministers fear that it could be a distraction from implementing current policies and reform programmes, but without this wider review no civil service reform will be sustained.
Some fear that this review will become too vast a project, but this is not another Fulton committee. Not only was Fulton allowed to take far too long, but the committee was not based in Parliament and so it became divorced from the reality of government, lacked parliamentary authority and had a flawed remit. In a brilliant “Yes Minister” act of sabotage, its remit denied Fulton the right to consider any aspect of the relationship between Ministers and officials. There is no vote on the commission today, but I hope that colleagues on both sides will endorse the view that the proposed parliamentary commission is not just a good idea, but Parliament’s duty. I hope they will join all those already pressing for this to be brought to a vote in the Lobby as soon as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
May I suggest to Members that they take up to 10 minutes only?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Select Committee, of which I, too, am a member. May I take this opportunity to applaud him on his strong, intelligent leadership of the Committee? I strongly endorse the report’s conclusion, which is that there should be a parliamentary commission on the civil service. Different views will be taken on this, and I have a different view from many other members of the Committee. I am an unapologetic and unreconstructed statist—indeed, as a student I wrote a paper in praise of the French prefecture system, which is statism par excellence.
As you can see, Mr Deputy Speaker, the report is substantial, and most of it is evidence. The evidence given to us was fascinating. It came from former Cabinet Secretaries, current heads of the civil service, academic historians, political commentators and, most importantly, trade union leaders. Listening to them all and asking them a range of questions was a fascinating experience.
The report came to some conclusions—not recommendations, as such. First, it supports the Northcote-Trevelyan principles, established in 1854, on the political impartiality of the civil service. That is fundamental and I want us to retain it for the long-term. Secondly, the Haldane doctrine of ministerial accountability is supported, although it is questioned. That may be discussed by the commission, as and when it is established. I was one who was appalled when a Labour Minister in the previous Government chose to blame a civil servant in this Chamber. That was a break with tradition; it was shameful at the time and it caused some consternation, and I am glad to say that it has not been repeated. I hope we will continue to retain the principle of ministerial responsibility.
I want to see the historical features of the civil service retained, although obviously we will look at every possible reform to improve it for the future. We should continue to recruit the brightest from the universities to be senior career civil servants, and we want both generalists and senior specialist professionals. I believe the Minister has a similar view to mine that generalists do have their place in the civil service. We do not just want technocrats; we want people who have a broad philosophical view of the world, who understand politics and economics, and who have some sense of history. We cannot have just scientists or just economists—especially not economists, and I say that as one myself.
There is a range of views. Some think that the civil service should be entirely politicised, which is a view that I utterly rejected in Committee. We have now confirmed that we do not want to see the civil service politicised as it is in countries such as the United States of America. We have a unitary system of government; we do not have separation of powers or balance of powers. The civil service has to have power to speak truth to power—that private responsibility to advise Ministers.
Some of our best Departments have made serious mistakes in recent years, so clearly there are things that are wrong, and I think I know why. The Treasury seemed to be stuffed full of monetarists—unfortunately, this was after my time at university—who had a particular view on how to run an economy, and they made some serious mistakes. When we joined the exchange rate mechanism in 1990, I predicted that it would fail, and sure enough it did. We might not have joined that mechanism had some civil servants in the Treasury said, “Ministers, this is a mistake.” If we had had some Keynesians in the Treasury, they might have said, “We have to retain currency flexibility for our economy, and if we don’t do that, we will be in severe danger.” Had someone said that, we might not have made that mistake. That decision led to the 1992 collapse, which destroyed the credibility of the Conservative Government at the time and led directly to the election of Labour in 1997. Some might like to claim credit for that, but it was, in fact, the collapse of the ERM and everything that went with it—the housing problems and so on—that led to political victory for my party.
We need a range of views. When I was student of economics, one of our lecturers was a former Treasury civil servant, and he said that within the civil service or the Treasury, there was always someone working on the alternatives. For example, in the 1967 devaluation debate, we had on the one hand, the sound money people arguing for preserving the pound’s parity and, on the other hand, others working on an alternative devaluation proposal. Eventually devaluation happened, which was sensible. What was important, though, was the range of views, which were privately held within the civil service. Those views were not political; they were based on, among other things, academic research.
I wish to submit my own views, as and when the commission is established. I have already written a paper on what I think is wrong with the civil service and submitted it to a recent conference. Although the civil service is not politicised as such, it was driven in a particular direction after the 1970s. Those who had a critical view of neo-liberalism, monetarism and the markets were marginalised, and it was taken as holy writ within the civil service that the market was right and that we should devolve as much as possible to the private sector. I thought that was profoundly wrong then, and I still do now and would like to see it reversed.
I want to see insourcing, not outsourcing. Outsourcing has been disruptive. It has reduced accountability and led to all sorts of failures, such as the failure in IT. Many of the IT catastrophes in the public sector come about because the civil service does not have the capacity to manage IT contracts. I would establish a public corporation for IT, where those changes to the way we run things would be done inside, not outside, the civil service. We would not have to give gigantic contracts to private sector companies, which then make mistakes and say, “Well, Ministers, if it is all wrong, would you like us to do it again?” They then get a second contract and make even more money, and the civil service is blamed for failures. Such a service should be in-house not out of house.
Outsourcing has caused all sorts of problems. In a recent report, the National Audit Office said that there was a
“crisis of confidence caused by some worrying examples of contractors not appearing to treat the public sector fairly, and of departments themselves not being on top of things.”
That is precisely what I have described in relation to IT.
There are so many details that one could go into. Some Departments have had serious problems, but I am reluctant to name names. However, the Department for Transport was in chaos over railway franchising; clearly, there were people involved who were not able to handle the situation. We had the west coast main line debacle. I understand that because of churn, those who had some vague understanding of franchising were quickly moved on, and there was nobody left to do the job properly. Keeping experienced staff—avoiding churn—is vital. That means not cuts at all costs, but making sure that we retain those civil servants with experience and skills rather than just reducing staffing come what may.
The vast tax gap has been caused, at least in part, by savage cuts to personnel in HMRC. Everyone knows—I have said this in this Chamber many times—that one tax officer collects many times their own salary in additional tax, so why not put in place hundreds if not thousands more HMRC officials and collect the billions that remain uncollected? That would perhaps help to solve some of our financial problems.
There are all sorts of problems that I want to address when I make my modest submission to the commission, when it is set up. There are issues that have to be addressed. I want to see the restoration of the strong big state that we had after the second world war, under which the lives of working people were transformed. A small state with privatisation and marketisation will, I think, bring no good to working people or the economy overall. I have a particular view, I want to put that view and I hope that others will think likewise.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on bringing this matter forward so determinedly. Indeed, I am glad that the debate will be responded to by a Minister who I know to be a reforming Minister, but we still feel he needs to raise his reforming game from the specific and valuable things that he has been doing to deal with a wider concept of the future of the civil service. We have a civil service with excellent qualities, and I will refer to some of them in a moment, but as the Government themselves have said, we want a
“world-class, 21st Century Civil Service capable of delivering”
future
“Government’s priorities and the best public services.”
When the Public Administration Committee produced its report, the Liaison Committee wanted to support its conclusions but also to bring together several Select Committees’ experience of failings in the system. That led us to question the Prime Minister last September, at one of our thrice-yearly sessions with him, about the civil service. He responded well on specific matters, but I am still not at all convinced that he grasped the fundamental problem that the civil service is now facing very different circumstances, and we need to assess how far it can change the way it does things without losing some of its essential features.
We published a short report that highlighted some of the problem areas, such as the electronic monitoring of offenders, the west coast main line franchise and universal credit, where there had been serious implementation problems. We also gave praise where it was due, for example for the success of the Olympic and Paralympic games organisation. We concluded that there was significant evidence that the civil service is not equipped to support consistent contract management and tends to be driven by short-term pressures rather than long-term value for money for the taxpayer. We were unconvinced that the Government’s civil service reform plan for Whitehall is based on a strategic consideration of the future of the civil service. We gave our support to the idea of a parliamentary commission, jointly involving both Houses.
The Government responded to our report earlier this week and published their response in time for this debate. They deal with all our specific points, but still do not, I think, grasp the overall point. They say
“the Government does not agree that these examples indicate a wider failure, nor suggest that there is any systemic problem of trust and honesty in the critical relationship between Ministers and officials.”
However, the Institute for Government recently published a report saying that there is a “lack of collective leadership” at the centre and that “short-termism” is weakening Whitehall’s ability to plan ahead, while there is
“no co-ordinating…narrative for the Civil Service to lock into”,
and although:
“Leaders of reform report strong Prime Ministerial support for civil service reform in private...this has little visibility within Whitehall.”
The argument that the Prime Minister used was that a parliamentary commission could displace current reform efforts, which are urgently needed. If that view ever had any significance, it does not in the last year of this Parliament, when so many of the Government’s reform initiatives have already been introduced. We ought now to be considering what we can bequeath to the next Parliament. We in the Select Committees inherited a significant bequest as a result of the Wright Committee’s work and, in many ways, we would like the next Parliament to inherit some worthwhile things, including a clear concept of how to develop the civil service to meet modern needs. A joint commission would make that possible.
The other place has a ready supply of former Cabinet Secretaries, people who have run large private and public sector organisations and people who have political experience, who can join with those who have recent and immediate experience in this House in analysing what is needed and making proposals.
Mr Harper
I have studied the motion on the Commons Order Paper and the proposed names of Members of this House. On the point about membership, I was a little worried, given the right hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for reform, that he seemed to suggest that the Members of the House of Lords who should serve on the commission would be former Cabinet Secretaries. Is that a way to get reform or to ensure that reform does not happen?
Sir Alan Beith
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. My list was much longer than that. It included people with experience in the private sector and—as I was about to say but did not due to the shortage of time—in the armed forces.
Sir Alan Beith
I suppose I ought also to say that it would be an amendable motion in any event. Before I was elected to the House, I used to give university lectures about the civil service at the time of the Fulton report. My lecture notes would be of little use today as so much has changed. The Fulton report was itself trying to catch up with change, but so much has happened since then. The civil service is now far less an administrator of services and much more a buyer of services. Back-office outsourcing has been a major development. The Minister knows that I have some concerns that we will not have a footprint of the civil service in the smaller towns and communities around the country if we do not manage that carefully to take advantage of good people who are available, as in my own constituency.
The civil service can no longer be treated as a protected environment where private sector disciplines of personal responsibility, value for money and management of risk have no place. Much policy making is now international—in the European Union, the World Trade Organisation and the United Nations. We are a less centralised state, at least in Scotland, Wales and London, with some devolution to cities and combined local authorities. Departments cannot continue to operate as sole owners of policy, living in separate silos, when so many of the problems we have to address—crime prevention, public health and skills for employment, to name just three—can be solved only on a cross-departmental basis. This means that money needs to be spent in one Department when the consequent savings will be earned in another Department. Money spent dealing with alcohol problems will save money in prison places, for example. Our system is not designed to accommodate such decisions.
The Prime Minister’s office expects to be much more closely involved in many areas of policy, and questioning in the Liaison Committee has been developed to get at that and establish just what the Prime Minister’s office is doing when it has a guiding role—some would say an interfering role—in policy. Perhaps that is an unfortunately pejorative term. Many would say that it is right that the Prime Minister exercises a significant influence on policy development, but it has made a different character of work in at least some Departments.
The Treasury’s role is nowadays quite often one of encouraging specific expenditure as well as blocking other expenditure—a more active role than it sometimes played in the past. Select Committee scrutiny has pulled back the veil of ministerial responsibility and rightly opened up much more what actually happened when decisions were taken. Coalition Government has required new procedures to be developed, and Ministers are as impatient as ever to deliver policy change. The Government have sought to accommodate that through the idea of extended ministerial offices, but I am still unclear whether any Department has followed the Cabinet Office with an extended ministerial office. Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
Amidst all this there are key features of the British civil service that most of us are very anxious to keep, including political impartiality—a civil service that can serve any Government—high ethical standards and the ability to attract people of the highest ability. Resolving these things is not a simple matter. It needs some careful thought. We need to hand on to the next Parliament a well-thought-out understanding of the future of our civil service and how it can be achieved.
Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing this hugely important debate, even if it is taking place in the twilight hour of a Thursday afternoon. I also congratulate the Minister for the Cabinet Office on undertaking important reforms, and we should wish him well across the House. I welcome the work that has been done by bodies such as the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Institute for Government to try to tackle some of the complex issues that we face. I am delighted by today’s launch of GovernUp, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on their hard work. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex on his Committee’s important cross-party work, as well as on the proposition that we should have a commission. My view on such things is that we should let a thousand flowers bloom given that, as there are so many complex issues, every new idea will add value.
To get to the meat of the debate, wherever we sit in the House the challenge that faces us all in an age of austerity is how we maximise the value of constrained expenditure to meet the pressing and ever-growing needs of our constituents. That interest in best value crosses political divides and, I hope, unites Members on both sides of the House. If we are to achieve that, however, radical transformation is essential, and that, too, should be a shared objective. Bringing about such transformation is a huge challenge that requires absolute commitment and will take a long time, so we need to work together across the House so that the vital reforms that are needed to deliver more effective and efficient government are taken out of crude party politics, which is why the work that is being done by the Public Administration Committee and in other forums is important. We need to build a cross-party consensus on reform that can be delivered across electoral cycles.
I want to talk about three issues, although I could talk about more: the capability of the civil service; the organisation of Government in managing and delivering projects and programmes; and responsibility and accountability to Parliament and the taxpayer for services and projects delivered. First, on capability, I think that we all agree that the civil service recruits the brightest and the best, and people who are committed to public service, yet all too often the Public Accounts Committee finds that they fail to deliver major projects and vital services efficiently. We find that they too often cannot manage major business transformation, such as universal credit, and that they waste money on big projects. For example, with the aircraft carrier project, which has spanned Governments of both parties, the original proposal was for two aircraft and delivery in 2016 at a cost of £3.65 billion, but now, if we are lucky, it will involve one aircraft by 2020 at a cost of £6 billion. All too often, people working for the Government liberally use other people’s money—taxpayers’ money—in a way that they would never use their own, and our Committee has seen the NHS and BBC pay-offs as cases in point.
Although people come into government with the best of motives and abilities, they are not trained in the skills that they need to carry out the job that is required of them today, so they do not have commercial, project management, financial and IT skills that we need in a modern civil service. My Committee has seen many examples of things going wrong, most recently with the letting of the interpreter contract by the Ministry of Justice and the contract for offshore power transmission to the grid.
Kelvin Hopkins
Managing contracts is the issue, because if less was contracted out and more was done in house, some of those problems might be overcome.
Margaret Hodge
I know where my hon. Friend is coming from, but we need the capability in government effectively to manage contracts whenever and by whomever they are delivered. There is a legacy in the civil service of focusing on policy, which is valued, but not implementation, which is vital, so we must challenge that culture.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
Was the right hon. Lady as impressed as I was by Michael Spurr, the new head of the National Offender Management Service, who started his career as a prison officer, has front-line experience and is now chief executive? He was a breath of fresh air when he appeared before our Committee, because he really focused on what we have to do to deliver good public services.
Margaret Hodge
I entirely agree, and that takes me very neatly to my next point. Promotion in the civil service is all too often about moving to a job in another area, rather than focusing on one job and seeing it through to the end. I think that the hon. Lady would agree that the worst example the Committee has seen was the attempt to implement the new FiReControl policy, for which we saw 10 senior responsible officers in a matter of five years. It is no wonder the project went horribly wrong.
I think that there is still a culture in the civil service of being hostile to outsiders, rather than embracing the talents that can be brought in from all sorts of backgrounds and experiences, which I think are often seen as a threat. When I was a Minister, I brought three incredibly talented women into the Department for Education to try to implement policies. None of them now works anywhere in Government, even though they could contribute to policy implementation.
I also think that too often the civil service and Government are—dare I say it?— exploited by consultants. My Committee will shortly be looking at the sale of Royal Mail, which might be just the last in a line of examples of that. I recognise that some steps are being taken, such as the development of the Major Projects Authority and the academy for training in project management. They are all steps in the right direction, but they are not enough and they are not happening fast enough.
Secondly, Government are just poorly organised for delivering what is wanted and needed. Government still work in silos, which always leads to unintended consequences. To take a current example, local authorities have had massive cuts, which inevitably has an impact on their social care expenditure. At the same time, we have a health policy that is trying to get people out of hospitals and into the community, but without any money to support it.
Working in silos leads to a failure to learn from mistakes, with one Department simply replicating the mistakes made by another. The Committee has seen that in the mistakes made during the early implementation of the private finance initiative, for example. If we look at how the contracts for energy have been implemented, we see that lots of those errors have been duplicated in the current contracts that have been signed by the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
There is a failure at the centre to recognise the importance of a strong centre. My Committee has just received a letter from Sir Bob Kerslake, Nicholas Macpherson and Richard Heaton. We had written to them about the importance of having a strong centre. I will quote a few lines from their letter:
“Your Committee urges the Cabinet Office and the Treasury to take a strong strategic lead, as the Government’s corporate centre, in civil service reform and associated issues… However, the… central direction and integration that you appear to recommend does not reflect the model that this government and previous governments have operated.”
I do not know whether that is true. I have asked the Minister whether he agrees.
The letter goes on to state that
“the Centre does not and cannot take decisions or set a strong direction on every item of the £720 billion of public expenditure… the government machine is not like a holding company dominating its subsidiaries from a corporate centre.”
Well, I do not know what business of that magnitude would not have a strong centre and would wash its hands of its responsibility for the performance of its constituent parts. Since when have we, as politicians, signed up to the mantra? It is almost like claiming that there is no such thing as Government; only Departments with their Secretaries of State. Reform, if it is to ensure that coherence, efficiency and effectiveness are delivered across Government, must mean that we have strong central direction and much better integration than we currently enjoy.
Sir Alan Beith
I agree with the point the right hon. Lady is making. It comes back to what I was saying about the role of the Prime Minister’s office, which often seems to get involved in specific policies because they are politically significant, rather than to exert the central management she describes.
Margaret Hodge
I entirely agree with that comment.
Finally, I want to talk about the conventions on responsibilities and accountabilities within the civil service and between civil servants and Ministers. The system is no longer working, and we need to rethink it. That is the extent of the complexity of the issues we are confronting. We need to deliver this in a sustainable way that will work across the political parties. The current position is frustrating for Ministers and for civil servants. We can look at the situation at the Ministry of Justice and at the Department for Work and Pensions, where I think there is a reluctance to speak truth to power, or at the Home Office, with the experience regarding the UK Borders Agency and the frustrations felt by Ministers.
As the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex said, the doctrine of ministerial accountability is constructed on a basic lie. If Ministers are to be held accountable for the work of their civil servants, it is nonsensical that they can neither hire nor fire them. If we do not challenge that basic lie, we will never achieve the effective changes that we require.
Mr Jenkin
The right hon. Lady might be surprised to know that when I addressed 200 civil servants at lunchtime today and asked how many had read the Haldane memorandum, which remains the absolute basis of the doctrine of ministerial accountability and should affect every one of their working lives, no one put their hand up. Does that not suggest that we need to rework the whole concept of accountability into the education of civil servants so that they understand why they are accountable?
Margaret Hodge
The hon. Gentleman has had a very telling experience, and I agree with him.
Right across today’s world, not just in Government but in every sphere of life, better accountability and more transparency should be the order of the day, and that must feed into the way that we govern ourselves and are governed. Analysing the fact that we have a problem is much easier then finding a sustainable solution over time.
In this short contribution, I have been able only to skim the surface of some very tough issues. We need a radical overhaul of how we do Government. We need cross-party co-operation if we are to make progress. We know that we have the brightest and the best working for us in Government and the civil service, and we need to work with them to ensure that between us we properly serve the people in whose name we are privileged to govern.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that Mr Deputy Speaker advised the House that if everybody takes approximately 10 minutes for their speeches, then everyone who has indicated that they wish to speak will have an opportunity to do so. The arithmetic has changed a little since he made that pronouncement. If everybody who has indicated that they wish to speak takes approximately seven minutes, all their colleagues will have an opportunity to speak.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
In 2010, when I accepted an invitation to join the Government of Britain, to coin a phrase, I found myself as a Minister in two Departments—the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. My experience was precisely that outlined by the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) as regards the problems of silo Departments. They were two Departments created from one, and they found it very difficult to co-operate to address holistically the problems that clearly needed to be addressed; how to tackle crime, at source, at the earliest possible stage. Just as people were trying to deal with those problems in a joined-up manner on the ground, the Departments had been split nationally.
It was a salutary experience. When I walked into the Ministry of Justice for the first time, I was shown the lifts by my private secretary. The MOJ had a more intelligent allocation of lifts than the Home Office: you indicated the floor you wanted to go to and the right lift would arrive for you. My private secretary told me that it was possible to override the programme in the event of a Division so that a lift would immediately arrive for me, the Minister. I tried this out on what I thought would be a quiet afternoon. The lift hurtled to my floor, and a sign on it said, “This lift is under ministerial control.” The doors opened, and out stepped the then Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who questioned whether the lift was indeed under his control. If so, it was about the only thing there that was under ministerial control.
The serious point I want to make is that, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and the right hon. Member for Barking have said, although set by an historical doctrine, questions of accountability arise today. If, in the mid-19th century, a form of permanent government was effectively created, that is fine when that permanent government happens to do things in the way that accountable Ministers like and that is satisfactory, and when it happens to be performing well. The problem comes when that permanent government does not perform well. Accountability then falls on Ministers who have little ability to wrest improvements from the system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex suggested, the failures do not need to be rehearsed. As the right hon. Member for Barking said, there have clearly been major and costly project failures. When this Government came to power, only a third of major projects were running to time and to budget, and the problems have persisted. There are issues with skills, given the commissioning failures we have seen. There is also the issue of poor financial control. It is a paradox that in our centralised state the willingness of the centre to exercise careful financial control over Departments is actually very limited. The Treasury does not wish to exercise that detailed financial management or scrutiny, and it shows. All these things often lead to poor value for money, a waste of resources and poor outcomes. It is the weakest in our society who pay the price, but we all pay a price through higher taxation. I think it is common ground that these issues need to be addressed.
Every time a Government come to power, they arrive believing that there are few problems that cannot be solved by the arrival of an enlightened Government with a different set of political objectives, and that all the problems are the fault of the outgoing Government. That was certainly the case in 1997 and in 2010, when most Ministers—my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office was one of the notable exceptions, and it shows—had little experience of government. Soon the scales drop from Ministers’ eyes as they realise that not all the problems can be laid at the political door—the door of the Opposition—and that there are systemic problems.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) said, we have an opportunity for forging a cross-party agreement about the changes that need to be made. Why? Because, for the first time since the second world war, every party has had recent experience of being in government and understands that while the political debate goes on, there are issues that we need to address. That is why I am pleased today to have launched GovernUp with the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), a non-party project with cross-party support. I am delighted that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is a member of the advisory board. The board also includes the Government’s lead non-executive director, Lord Browne; Lord Bichard, a former permanent secretary; Lord Birt and Baroness Lane-Fox—all Cross-Bench peers with important experience to bring.
Over the course of the next year the project will do important research in the areas of accountability, skills and international comparisons—work that needs to be done. It will not do that work alone, or simply be an isolated research project, but will draw on the experience of former Ministers, in this place and outside, and of civil servants, whom we wish to appoint to a reference panel. We have secured agreement to that proposal from the leadership of the civil service and the Minister.
That approach will be evidence-led, will involve detailed and careful research, will be open, involving outside bodies, will involve dialogue with the civil service itself and will draw on the experience of parliamentarians in both Houses. I want to suggest that that is a better approach than that of a parliamentary commission. I have grave doubts about the capability of a parliamentary commission to do what is necessary. Indeed, I think that the concept of a parliamentary commission—an old-fashioned, inquisitorial model—is entirely wrong, quite apart from the question of who would be on it. The real question is whether it is a body that looks backwards or forwards: do its members wish to be a part of it because they think that proposals for civil service reform are dangerous and wrong, or are they looking forward to addressing the challenges that face this country and the kind of system we need to develop? The danger of the commission as currently constituted, with a judge leading it, is that it would be the worst kind of backward-looking and reactionary body, so I do not support the proposal.
Although the Public Administration Committee report has some interesting content, I think it is evidence of some of the weaknesses of a parliamentary approach. After months of deliberation and evidence-taking, what is the report’s conclusion? It is that there needs to be an inquiry. Where are the detailed recommendations? Where is the detailed analysis and evidence of the kind of change we need? We have only a year left and I believe that now is the time to do the careful work.
Kelvin Hopkins
I am disappointed at the right hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the concept, but the fact is that there are enormously wide ranges of views about the civil service. A conclusion would not have been consensual: there would have been serious division among members of the Select Committee and we would have gotten nowhere. A parliamentary commission could do that job.
Nick Herbert
I find great difficulty in understanding how a cross-party Select Committee would find it impossible to come to a conclusion, but a parliamentary commission would not. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could explain that.
Mr Jenkin
Why does my right hon. Friend think that the think-tank he has set up would be any more objective than a parliamentary commission? Indeed, how would it be more objective when it has been sanctioned and approved by the Cabinet Secretary and the civil service—the very thing he seeks to reform?
Nick Herbert
I agree with the right hon. Member for Barking that we should let a thousand flowers bloom. Many will wish to do work in this area, but I doubt very much that the GovernUp initiative, which I and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne have set up, is sanctioned by the leaders of the civil service. What I specifically said was that they had agreed that civil servants could perhaps sit on a reference panel. That does not mean that they would have control over any of the body’s work. My argument is that we now need to do the work. It is the detailed research and analysis that we need to do; we do not need political grandstanding or an inquisitorial approach. That is why I think that the proposed parliamentary commission would be wrong.
I believe that the narrative of Whitehall wars, whereby Ministers are at loggerheads with civil servants, is wrong and misplaced. There is plenty of evidence that civil servants themselves seek change. Indeed, the Public Administration Committee report notes that Lord O’Donnell, the previous Cabinet Secretary, said in his evidence that
“if you really want to improve public sector outcomes, I think there is a radical transformation necessary.”
It seems to me, therefore, that the question is not whether change is necessary, but what is the nature of the change and who will make the case for it? Do we have a system that is equal to the challenges facing this country, with rising demand for services, the need to adjust to further spending reductions in the next Parliament and in the future, and the fact that we face ever greater international competition? All parties need to understand that Government reform is as significant as, and essential for, public service reform. That is why this is such an important issue.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
May I at the outset draw attention to a non-pecuniary interest? I chair the Centre for Public Scrutiny. I think it is right that that should be placed on the record before I make my comments.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing this debate and I strongly support his Committee’s recommendation for a parliamentary commission on the civil service. I listened carefully to the views of the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I do not wish him ill with his initiative, but I cannot see how a think-tank set up in the spirit of letting a thousand flowers bloom will be able to produce an authoritative report that carries the weight necessary to lay the foundations for the future of our Government and civil service for decades to come. Frankly, it is a distraction. I note that the Government, in their grounds for rejecting the PASC recommendations, have said that they do not see the need for any more analysis or evidence gathering, but want action. If the Government welcome this initiative, I am not quite sure why they believe that evidence is not necessary, but are happy for this particular think-tank to gather evidence.
Few people would dispute the fact that our system of government faces huge challenges, partly because public confidence, which was badly damaged by the parliamentary expenses scandal, remains fragile, but equally because people are worried about the series of well-documented failures of the current Government and previous ones. The Chair of the Liaison Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), has highlighted a couple or three examples, and Ivor Crewe and Anthony King’s book, “The Blunders of our Governments”, provides much more documentation.
All that is reflected not only in negative perceptions of the system of government, but in evidence of increased tension between Ministers and civil servants. As the PASC report demonstrates, there is too much evidence of a blame culture, with Ministers seeking to evade responsibility for their failings by blaming civil servants and civil servants responding by showing a less-than-eager appetite for implementing policies they believe are inept or driven by party political motivation. Those serious and corrosive problems need to be addressed and dealt with, and we must have an authoritative group of people who are genuinely seen as impartial and as seeking a serious long-term solution to the kind of tensions that, sadly, are all too rife.
We know only too well that the architecture of our system of government—based on the doctrines of civil service impartiality and ministerial accountability to Parliament—evolved in a very different world, when the scale and nature of the civil service and the responsibilities for which Ministers were held accountable were very different from today’s, and when the Government had time to reflect and discuss collectively how best to respond, rather than being driven remorselessly by the demands of 24/7 media, as they are today. All that suggests that we need a proper, strategic cross-party assessment of how those doctrines should evolve or be changed to meet today’s different circumstances. That is precisely why I strongly support the idea of a parliamentary commission.
As the proposal for a parliamentary commission has received the backing of not only the Public Administration Committee but the Liaison Committee, I am surprised that the Government are so resistant. Frankly, when I read the Government’s reasons, my surprise turns to incredulity. The Government’s alternative, which is offered as an excuse for rejecting the idea of a commission, is not just inadequate, but in some respects counter-productive. Essentially, the Government case is that their civil service reform programme is sufficient, and that a commission would effectively be a distraction.
The first problem with that analysis is that the Government’s approach is neither strategic nor coherent. It has been well described as comprising a number of disjointed initiatives, some of which might be very productive, but some of which will not. The second problem is that the Government’s response is partial, and will not generate the cross-party consensus that is vital for any truly workable reform. The third problem is that the Government’s approach totally fails to address some of the key problems underlying the current negative perceptions of the system of government.
To give just one example, in one of the most highly centralised systems of government in the world, we have a serious problem of overload on Ministers, with far too many relatively minor issues being decided by central Government, rather than devolved to the lower tiers of government that are far better placed to handle them. One consequence is that there are too many Ministers, as the PASC report points out. Against that background, it is astonishing that a Government who used to proclaim their localist credentials—I note that they are rather tarnished these days—are simply not, as part of their civil service reform agenda, considering how to reduce overload on central Government through devolving powers that are more appropriately discharged elsewhere. The bizarre consequence is that although there is a clear objective to reduce the size of the civil service, the number of Ministers is not falling and the number of special advisers is growing, contrary to what the governing parties aspired to before they came into power.
I mentioned that some of the approaches in the Government’s civil service reform plan might be counter-productive. One example is the attempt to increase political influence over civil service appointments. I wholly concur with the views of Lord Hennessy, perhaps the foremost historian of 20th-century British government, who described the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms as
“the greatest single governing gift of the nineteenth to the twentieth century: a politically disinterested and permanent Civil Service with core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer its loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next”.
By contrast, the viability of the permanent civil service has now been called into question, against the background of an extraordinarily high turnover of permanent secretaries and the hollowing out of expertise from several Departments, which threatens their collective memory and experience, and leaves them increasingly dependent on external sources of advice, many of which will have partial, if not party political, agendas.
I have absolutely no doubt that the problems that afflict our system of government, which undermine trust between civil servants and Ministers, which contribute to ill-thought-out and poorly implemented policies and which leave the public increasingly sceptical about our ability to give them the good governance that they rightly expect, will persist and will not be remedied by the Government’s reform programme or the proposed think-tank. Some day—I hope that it is not too far away—Parliament will have to flex its muscles and insist on a full cross-party parliamentary commission to address the issue properly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have tried the polite and honourable approach, but it has not worked, so I have to impose a formal time limit of five minutes.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
The civil service is a critical national institution and part of the very fabric of politics. Since the 19th century, our administrative system has been based on the model of a politically impartial bureaucracy that serves the political masters of the day. One hundred and fifty years since Northcote and Trevelyan’s report, it is our duty to question whether the system is fit to meet the challenges of the 21st century. For that reason, I welcome the chance to debate the question of civil service reform and to put on the record my support for the Government’s programme, which was launched one and three quarter years ago.
I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General when the Government’s programme was formulated. It was painstakingly and carefully developed through consultation with civil servants, including the current leadership of the civil service. Sir Bob Kerslake and Sir Jeremy Heywood approved every line of the reform plan, and the actions were drawn from suggestions made by civil servants, from permanent secretaries right down the hierarchy.
I speak as a Back Bencher with no huge experience of governance, other than in my former role as a PPS, but my overriding sense is that we need to get on with the reforms because they are badly needed. Many of us have understandably been appalled by failures such as that over the west coast main line franchise. It is clear that there are serious lessons to be learned. The Government must drive ahead with their programme to improve the commercial and contract management skills of the civil service. We also need to improve the way in which major projects are delivered. The appointment of John Manzoni, formerly of BP, is a significant boost to the Government’s Major Projects Authority. Taxpayers expect every pound that is spent on such projects to be carefully checked and managed. The Government must therefore push ahead with their reforms to ensure that projects are scrutinised properly.
As the Minister reported in June last year, the Government have not yet achieved the reforms that they want, but a great deal has been done in some areas. Anyone who has accessed the Government’s new website will have been impressed by this country’s online offering. The programme to move 25 key public services online will make a material difference to my constituents when they apply for a new driving licence or an apprenticeship.
One key proposal in the reforms is that Ministers should have a greater say over the appointments of the most senior civil servants in their Departments. Surely, it is not unreasonable and is, indeed, sensible that there should be some ministerial choice over the people who play such a key role. I am aware that the concern has been expressed that such a change would or could lead to the politicisation of the civil service. I think that such worries are misplaced. As I understand it, the proposal is that all candidates will have to convince an independent panel that they have the requisite merit for the role. The panel, which will be overseen by the Civil Service Commission, will ensure that politics plays no part in their selection for consideration.
This modest change will instead ensure that the most senior civil servants are in tune with the agreed policies of their Department, as well as with the direction of travel towards achieving the desired outcome and with policy implementation. I understand that. My time working with the Cabinet Office demonstrated how important it is that Ministers and their civil servants work together.
We have heard proposals for this place to support a parliamentary commission on the future of the civil service. At one level I thoroughly understand the desire to have another look at things, but Ministers and officials are not short of advice on how to reform Whitehall. There are endless reports—some more radical, some less radical—all advocating different elements of reform: historians, political scientists, Select Committees, august think-tanks, retired permanent secretaries, former Ministers, and a host of other pundits have thrown their suggestions into the mix. The danger is not a lack of advice but rather an excess, and as I have made clear, the Government’s reform plan drew heavily on suggestions from civil servants about how best to change things.
Without doubt, a parliamentary commission would delay the Government’s reforms. Indeed, the commission is a suggestion of which Sir Humphrey himself would have been proud. I urge the Government to press ahead with their important programme.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray). I welcome this debate on the reform of the civil service, and congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing it. I do not think, however, that his proposal for a parliamentary commission at this stage of the Parliament is the answer, and had the House debated that proposal 12 months after the previous election, rather than 12 months before the next one, the case might have been stronger. I did agree with the hon. Gentleman when he said that there is more on which we agree than disagree, and this is a unique opportunity for us to start to forge a strong, cross-party consensus on the analysis of the problems, and the conclusions about changes that must be made to our system of British government if we are to do right by British taxpayers and those who depend on services.
In some ways, and for several reasons, I feel pretty confident about that. First, I was struck by the Minister for the Cabinet Office’s recent description of the civil service leadership as having a “bias to inertia”. I am not prone to quoting Tony Blair, but that echoed a comment he made in his book when he stated:
“As I discovered early on, the problem with the traditional Civil Service was not obstruction but inertia.”
The second reason for being confident about the potential for a cross-party, wider consensus is that excellent work has been done by think-tanks such as the Institute for Government, the Institute for Public Policy Research, the First Division Association, and the Public Administration Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex. A lot of that tends to be about the nitty-gritty weaknesses of government—the wiring, perhaps—and there is need for a much bigger view. Thirdly, for the first time since the second world war, all three major parties include people with recent or current experience of government, and all are looking forward to a closely contested election next May. We therefore have the potential and a unique opportunity to forge a consensus on how and why we need to change the civil service.
Despite its strengths, the civil service is still designed and run principally on a system that was established in the mid-1850s, but it is now simply not equal to the task given the changes and challenges of a modern society. In the time available I will mention four dimensions to the debate that I think are overlooked, but that I consider to be central. First, we cannot talk sensibly about civil service reform—or the civil service at all—without recognising the distinctions between policy and delivery staff, and between the 20,000 core policy officials or the 50,000 Whitehall-based staff, and more than 300,000 people who work in agencies and bodies, often outside London. Secondly, we cannot talk sensibly about better government if we look only at the civil service, because the questions are just as much about politicians as they are about civil servants: the capacity and culture of Ministers, the role of advisers, the adequacy of parliamentary scrutiny, the tyranny of short-termism, and 24-hour media.
I know when I was at my best as a Minister and when I was at my worst. When I was at my best I had a complex but clearly defined challenge. I had authority from the top to lead, including across Departments, and I had a team of good civil servants, some of whom were policy and some of whom were operations. I was at my worst when I came into sub-committees of the Cabinet with my lines to take from the Department and very little preparation or knowledge beforehand.
Thirdly, we cannot talk sensibly about a modern system of government if we do not get to grips with what the powers, roles and responsibilities should be at the centre, and what would work much better locally. Fourthly, we cannot talk sensibly about civil service reform if we do not have an accurate appreciation of civil service staff. It is not just their commitment to public service and the values of integrity and incorruptibility. There are only 1,900 fast streamers out of more than 400,000 civil servants. This time last year there were only 3,695 senior civil servants, yet still they do a dedicated, committed job with a strong sense of public service.
I was proud that one of the first reforms of the previous Labour Government was to reintroduce trade union rights at GCHQ. Trade unions have a part to play, speaking up on behalf of staff and offering views on the sort of change we need in the civil service, just as they do in many of Britain’s best and leading companies.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
We in this House can make whatever decisions we like, but unless the machinery of government is fit for purpose we will not achieve the policy outcomes we desire and we will not achieve value for money for the taxpayer. It is therefore very important that we come together and debate the future of the civil service to ensure that our machinery of government is fit for purpose in the 21st century.
I pay tribute to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude). He is delivering a quiet revolution and is one of the unsung heroes of the Government. Dare I suggest that the kind of the leadership we are getting from the top of Government in driving change is far more effective than any initiative, such as a commission, think-tank or anything else? He is driving change from the top and showing real leadership.
As the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) told us, we on the Public Accounts Committee are witnesses to, and becoming experts in, government failure. It is a bit like “Groundhog Day”: over and again we see the same reasons for that failure. She has described some of those reasons today: poor skills and a failure to have consistent management and senior responsible owners who see projects through from start to finish. We need real accountability in the system. The Committee found that only a third of big projects are delivered on time and to budget. We see the same failings over and again, and there is no excuse for that. The machinery of government should learn from what works and what does not.
I welcome the introduction of the Major Projects Authority. It has started to do a good job to improve performance, but I think it could a lot more. I have a plea for my right hon. Friend the Minister: we would like see another performance review of major projects and I would like it to be as candid as possible. Departments need to be put on notice when they fail to deliver what the Government expect of them. In particular, I would like to know what is happening to deliver items in the national infrastructure plan. The Major Projects Authority can play a positive role in holding Departments to account for delivery.
Skills are hugely important. I completely agree with the right hon. Member for Barking that the culture in the civil service puts too much emphasis on rewarding people who pursue policies and interests rather than commercial skills. That reflects the culture of a civil service that was borne out of a 19th-century approach to government administration. Today, the emphasis is not on government administration, but on delivering services to the public, often through third parties. We therefore need to reward commercial skills, not focus on policy. That will require behavioural and cultural change throughout the civil service. Ministers can only do so much: those values need to be adopted by those at the top of the civil service.
I welcome the Minister’s efforts to deliver the Government’s capabilities plan to address skills shortages, but over and again we see that these values are not being adopted throughout government. Every permanent secretary needs to be a champion of ensuring that those behaviours are rewarded. If we do not, we will see poor value for money for the taxpayer. We have already seen that when Departments are not comfortable with managing commercial contracts, they tend to go with one supplier. That is creating new private sector monopolies funded by the taxpayer, which is bad for performance and bad for accountability. We need to ensure that our civil servants have the skills that will give them the confidence to manage contracts properly; otherwise those monopolies will get bigger and bigger. Let us have more rewards for civil servants who are actively grasping commercial challenges and actively pushing competition. There have been some good examples of that.
As I said during the speech of the right hon. Member for Barking, it was refreshing to see a prison officer reach the top of the offender management service, and to note the perspective he brought to that position. We are always encountering permanent secretaries who talk in a policy-wonkish way, but I am talking about real service delivery and real operational performance. Someone who becomes a chief executive after being a prison officer working on the front line will understand the whole business. He will know where the bodies are buried, and what needs to be changed. That is so much more effective: let us see more of it, please.
We have become used to very poor management of transport projects, but the senior responsible owner of the Thameslink project was the same person throughout. Let us see more of that as well.
I do not think that we need a commission. I think that we have seen enough government failure on the Public Accounts Committee and the Public Administration Committee. We know what is wrong; let us just get on with fixing it—and my right hon. Friend will.
Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I congratulate the Public Administration Committee The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is absolutely right: we need behavioural and cultural change to be at the heart of the system. Successive Governments have argued in circles about the structure of government—about which bit belongs where, and all the rest of it—and have never come up with the perfect structure, simply because there is no perfect structure. Let us take the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Where does the science bit belong, where does the sport bit belong, where does the culture and museums bit belong? The arguments are enormously difficult, and no one will ever come up with a perfect solution.
It is blindingly obvious that there must be a much better porous membrane between the structures of Departments to make things work, but there are massive cultural obstacles in the way of that. During the 1997 Parliament, I did some work for the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, on the delivery of technology. The paper that I produced for him pointed out that the problem was not about the technology itself, but about the people and the business processes. For far too long, we have been stuck in the rut of saying “We do it this way because we do it this way.” In case after case, I was able to demonstrate that a fundamental shift in the way in which the business processes operate will produce better efficiencies, better productivity, and—most important of all, as the hon. Member for Thurrock observed—better services for the people whom we are here to represent.
I think that the arguments for having a good look at the structure and the mechanisms that operate are not just philosophical arguments but practical arguments that matter a great deal to the people whom we represent. The way in which we should do that is a matter of debate. My Select Committee recently undertook some work on horizon scanning, which is covered by the Minister’s Department. We heard some very fine evidence from Jon Day, who leads that work for the Government, and who described very clearly the problems of silo government and how it can be broken down. I am sure that that evidence will feature when we write our report, but it is already in the public domain.
A number of Members have talked about the problems of contract management. That, too, has been a massive problem within the system. We need a professional contract management system that is fit for purpose and very few Departments can claim they have cracked that problem.
I conclude, contrary to my very good friend my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), that the place to do this work is inside the House. I agree with the Public Administration Committee. We need the practical experience Members of Parliament bring to this debate: knowledge of what is missing from the delivery of services to their constituents and knowledge of the practical problems of dealing with the complex structures within government. That is where Members of Parliament from both Houses can contribute significantly to the debate.
These are not issues that will necessarily cause any rift between the parties because I think there is a genuine desire to improve the business processes and the way in which the civil service relates to us, the Government and the people we represent. I do not see this creating a great divide, therefore, and I do not think the Government should be worried that it will slow their reform programme at all. This can happen in parallel, and I urge the Secretary of State to think about how we can make that happen and deliver a profoundly important report by the PASC.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
This has been an extremely good debate, with exceptional speeches from all Members who have contributed. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing the debate. His speech was very thoughtful, and in “Truth to power” his Committee has produced a weighty, detailed report that must be taken seriously. I hope in my remarks to give him a bit of guidance about what the Labour Front Bench thinks of his report’s recommendations.
Our deliberations have also benefited from recent reports from the Liaison Committee and outside bodies such as the Institute for Government. In addition, today my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) have launched GovernUp, which is described as an independent cross-party project
“to consider the far-reaching reforms needed in Whitehall and beyond to enable more effective and efficient government.”
Based on the thoughtful speeches of my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman, we look forward to GovernUp’s research and recommendations with some eagerness.
We have benefited from many former senior Ministers’ insights this afternoon. I am not a former Minister, but I am a former special adviser and had the privilege of working closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne. In my time in government, I found the civil servants who supported Ministers on policy advice to be wholly dedicated, impartial and exceptional men and women. I think sometimes we should be careful in debates such as this not to reinforce the stereotypes of civil servants as faceless bureaucrats. Thankfully, nobody has done that in this debate, but sometimes in popular culture that can happen. The reality is that civil servants are public servants. As well as serving Ministers, they serve our constituents, sometimes on a daily basis. and they serve some of the most vulnerable people we represent at their times of greatest need. Civil servants prosecute criminals, represent British interests abroad and help to protect our borders.
The model of our civil service has stood the test of time, ever since Sir Stafford Northcote and Sir Charles Trevelyan’s reports 150-odd years ago. It is a model of political impartiality, objectivity and integrity. Those values should be maintained at the heart of the civil service, and they are values to which I reiterate our absolute commitment.
The function of the civil service is not only to serve Ministers and the Government of the day. Civil servants prepare and transfer their expertise from one Government to the next. A fact that is sometimes overlooked is that the civil service enables us in Parliament to hold the Government to account. It is civil servants who draft answers to parliamentary questions—of course, Ministers sign them off and sometimes change them, but it is the civil servants who draft them in the first place. The civil service also provides factual information to our Committees and Libraries. A healthy, functioning and impartial civil service is important not only for a healthy, functioning Government but for enabling Parliament to hold Ministers to account. As “Truth to power” points out:
“Nobody…argues that the Civil Service should be immune from change.”
I am sure that everyone in the Chamber would agree with that.
I was impressed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne, in making a point about the inertia of the civil service, managed to quote both Tony Blair and the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. That is quite an unusual coalition. My right hon. Friend was right to make that point; that is what the debate is about. It is about ensuring that we reform the civil service so that Ministers are able to pursue the agenda that they were elected to implement and that the British people supported when they voted for them.
We should also bear in mind that the civil service is undergoing a significant reduction in numbers, with an overall reduction of 138,000 planned by 2015. In that context, we need to ask ourselves what the policy-making functions and the implementation of policy in a much-reduced civil service will look like. We will need to make sure that a civil service with those numbers can continue to serve Ministers and to enable Parliament to hold those Ministers to account.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said that her speech was merely skimming the surface. I thought she made an incredibly powerful speech, however, and I am impressed that she would describe a contribution of such depth as skimming the surface. She rightly talked about the way in which Departments work in silos. She also made a point about the nature of the Government and how the concept of individual Departments is completely alien to many of our constituents. The citizen is increasingly frustrated and baffled as to why their interaction with the Government has to be conducted through so many different agencies. How many times do they have to hand over their personal data—whether for a driving licence, a passport, a tax return or benefits—to many different Departments? We understand how it works, because we are politicians, but our constituents find the number of Departments increasingly baffling. Any Government who wanted to make changes in those areas would probably run up against the type of inertia that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne was talking about, but these are the issues that we have to confront in the modern world.
The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs made a thoughtful and, at times, quite sparky contribution to the debate. I was not expecting such a sparky debate, but I enjoyed his speech. He too alluded to the way in which Government Departments work in silos, as he did in his joint article with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne in The Times today. We really have to confront the problem of departmental silos, because many of the issues that we are going to have to deal with—long-term trends in health, climate change, the opportunity of opening up big data and raising the trend rate of growth over the medium to long term, for example—will require increased cross-departmental working. That is why I am particularly interested in the outcome of the research of the think-tank that my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman have established.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking, the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) and many others have referred to the skills gap and capability problems in the civil service. We are all familiar with the horror stories that have appeared in the press, including those relating to the west coast main line and to the contracts for broadband roll-out. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has been candid about the failures in introducing universal credit—indeed, there have been some spiky exchanges across the Dispatch Box on that subject. His candour has been refreshing, but we have to acknowledge that there are commercial problems within the civil service, and we must tackle them.
The report pulls no punches in its assessment of the skills gap across the civil service. Lord Adonis, in evidence to the Committee, said that, in his experience, some civil servants were
“poorly trained and their experience of the sectors in which they work is very poor”.
The Institute for Government has recently found that the civil service has suffered from “weak corporate leadership”. I think I am correct in saying that the data published by the Cabinet Office when it launched the civil service reform plan showed that out of 15 permanent secretaries at the main delivery Departments, only four had significant operational delivery or commercial experience. We would warmly welcome initiatives that increased the commercial experience of the civil service and developed the skills of the work force. I hope that the Department and Ministers involve all the workplace trade unions in meaningful discussions about and in the design of any such initiatives.
I am also worried about the general sense that there is a quick turnover in civil service posts. I recall from my few years working in government that civil servants moved quickly and Ministers would sometimes be surprised that a civil servant with whom they may have had a close working relationship on a particular project was suddenly moved to another part of the Department and working in a different area. My worry is that we sometimes lose, or we can lose, expertise in that way, although I understand that civil servants want to develop their skills. Again, we need to think about this carefully.
None the less, Labour Members believe that a number of the Government’s reform proposals have merit, such as requiring greater scrutiny of major projects, reducing the turnover of senior responsible officers, and the plan for integrating corporate functions. On the latter measure, may I press the Minister to say something about the shared services centres for functions relating to IT, human resources, pay and payroll? When they were created, some TUPE-ing over of staff took place, with time-limited agreements on no compulsory redundancies. We now understand that there will be job losses and offshoring of work, so will he give us his views on that? Is he confident about the data security issues?
Some Members have referred to the extended ministerial offices. We will want to study the Government’s proposals on that and what they mean for accountability of Ministers and of civil servants. More generally, when we are discussing these issues, we must remember that the morale of civil servants is important—a happy work force is a more productive work force. We have previously had exchanges across the Dispatch Box about check-off, and Departments are reviewing that. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on those reviews and when he expects Departments to report back, if it is not going to be the Cabinet Office doing this.
The Opposition are examining and thinking carefully about our views on civil service reform. We warmly welcome the initiatives taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne and the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs. The case for a parliamentary commission made by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex should be taken seriously. We are not going to commit today to supporting such a commission. It would need to have cross-party support, and some Members have spoken in favour today and others have spoken against. We are not ruling such a commission out indefinitely, but today we do not feel we can commit to supporting it. None the less, these debates should be taken seriously and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) on securing this debate. It has been a really good debate, conducted with a lot of intelligent, thoughtful comments and insights. It has been particularly marked by a very bipartisan, consensual approach, with a high degree of agreement from those in all parts of the House. I am particularly grateful for the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) and I wish to pick up on a couple of points she made. She is absolutely right to say that we need to work on the ability of the civil service to accommodate and assimilate people coming in from outside. I also completely agree with her on the issues about women succeeding in the higher realms of the civil service, which is why I have just commissioned some work on examining exactly where and why the problems arise, so that we can address this in a substantive way. She is right to draw attention to it.
I start by saying that there are many absolutely brilliant civil servants. I have no doubt that we have some of the best civil servants in the world. Just this morning, I was with a number of civil servants in Birmingham. One example stood out, and it involved part of the Department for Communities and Local Government. The national planning casework unit, half of which is based in Birmingham, told me that its casework has risen over the past four years by 24%. The speed with which it is delivering the outcomes has improved markedly, and it is doing that with less than half the staff it had to begin with. That is a remarkable improvement in productivity.
As has been pointed out, there has been a significant reduction in headcount across the civil service. It is already down by some 16% or 17% with more reductions to come, and yet no one would say that the civil service is delivering less. There is a significant improvement in productivity. The downsizing has taken place through the recruitment freeze and through reforms to the civil service compensation scheme—the scheme was so generous as to be broadly unaffordable for the Government—for sensible voluntary redundancies to reduce the size and to reflect the need for things to be done differently. Some Departments, such as the DCLG and the Department for Education, have halved in size.
There have been significant improvements, with some brilliant civil servants doing terrific and important work, but we need continuing and significant further improvement. No one argues otherwise, and no one in this Chamber today has said anything else. It does not matter whether we call it change, reform or improvement. We need to recognise what is great. We talk about the British civil service being the envy of the world, but what is the envy of the world is the essence of the Northcote-Trevelyan settlement. Northcote was a politician and Trevelyan a civil servant—an early example of collective leadership. What that said was not primarily about impartiality, but about permanence, and appointment and recruitment on merit. The principle of a permanent civil service capable of serving the Government of the day, regardless of their composition, is crucial. The values of impartiality, honesty and integrity are really important, but they are passive values and to them need to be added the dynamic values.
The Northcote-Trevelyan settlement is a bargain, which says that a new Government cannot replace existing civil servants with their own appointees, because the other side of the coin of impartiality and permanence is the ability to deliver the priorities of the democratically elected and accountable Government of the day. That means that the civil service must be able to deliver it. If it falls down for too long on that side of the bargain, the case to allow the Government to bring in their own appointees and thus to disrupt the settlement, which none of us wants to see, will mount.
The truth is that in the public sector productivity flatlined for too long. That happened across the public sector as a whole, and the civil service represents only a part of that work force, but none the less it was a concern. Things have improved markedly over the past four years.
When people talk about the British civil service being the best in the world, as they often do, we should just reflect on the fact that in the World Bank’s Government effectiveness index, we ranked 15th, behind countries with systems similar to ours, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. We need to deal with the constant concerns that are expressed about the leadership and management of change. Those concerns are also expressed by civil servants themselves in people surveys, which is an excellent institution that will continue. The capability deficit in commercial and digital project management is repeatedly flagged up by the Public Accounts Committee, the Public Administration Committee, the Liaison Committee and the Institute for Government and we are on the case, as we have been for the past four years. Some of the problems that have arisen with contracts have come to light precisely because of the improvement in contract management. They went unnoticed for far too long and came to the surface in an alarming and distressing way, and we are working hard to deal with them, including by setting up the Crown Commercial Service, the Major Projects Leadership Academy and the Major Projects Authority, to which the right hon. Member for Barking referred. We have strengthened the hand of senior responsible owners by making them directly accountable. The Government Digital Service is almost, but not quite, what the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was proposing—that is, a public corporation for Government IT. None the less, it is an agency within government that has massively improved capability. I rather agree with him about the need to insource some of the capability, as too much IT capability was outsourced.
Much work has already been done and the problems are well understood and are being addressed, but we need to do that much more quickly because too much public money—taxpayers’ money—is at risk.
Impartiality is, of course, important. That does not mean and has never meant being impartial to the Government of the day. The civil service must be very partial towards the Government’s getting their programme implemented; otherwise, the bargain starts to fall apart. The essence of impartiality is not indifference to the Government of the day but the ability to be equally passionate and committed to implementing a future Government’s priorities and programme. It is important that this impartiality does not turn into a cold indifference. It must be a passionate commitment to delivering the Government of the day’s priorities. That is hugely important.
There is much that has been done and much that needs to be done. Let me now come on to the proposal for a commission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. Differing views have been expressed on both sides of the House and a huge amount of work and analysis is already going on. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) on setting up another institute to study the issue and make proposals. That is very important.
As it would run alongside an active reform programme commanding very widespread support—it has slightly surprised me how little controversy has attended the civil service reform programme—one must ask what a commission would add at this stage. There would be scope-creep: the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) would like to add localism, the hon. Member for Luton North would like to add the size of the state, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) would like to add the Scottish civil service, and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) would like to consider a wider joining-up across government than that which relates to the civil service.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex has slightly added to my concern about whether a commission would delay the implementation of the existing reform programme. His Committee’s last report suggested that the Government’s modest proposal that the Prime Minister should be able to choose between two appointable candidates should not be implemented until a commission had considered it, thus lending support to exactly the concerns we have expressed for some time. If relatively modest proposals that command such widespread support can be successfully implemented, the current system will have been reinforced. If they cannot be implemented in the way we are proposing, I suggest that that would be the time for root-and-branch examination through a commission.
Mr Jenkin
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister and everyone who has spoken in the debate. I agree that it has been an interesting debate in which there has been a great deal of consensus and agreement. Let me just respond to the last point made by my right hon. Friend. The point we are making in our report is that it would be wrong for the Government to overrule the Civil Service Commission without Parliament having some say in the matter, because the Civil Service Commission was established by Parliament to provide precisely that kind of check and balance in the system to stop the Government making such a decision merely on the basis of royal prerogative. Personally, I am sympathetic to the idea that ministries should have more influence and choice, as they had in the past, over decisions about the appointment of permanent secretaries.
In all the speeches today, I have not heard a single solid argument against the civil service commission. Every argument in praise of GovernUp and the work it is doing is an argument in favour of the civil service commission in Parliament. How can we let one thousand flowers bloom, as the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) said—my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) endorsed that—if we stamp on the one flower that has democratic authority and legitimacy on the question of the civil service in Parliament?
Business without Debate
Blasphemy Law (Pakistan)
(10 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to debate the application of blasphemy laws in Pakistan. I consider myself to be a passionate, strong friend of Pakistan; I want to see it succeed. It is the country where I was born and spent the first six years of my life before moving to Gillingham as a little boy, which is the constituency that I now have the great honour to represent. I also had the great privilege to serve as an adviser to Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who lost her life during her quest to reform the country.
Pakistan aspires to be a global player and to have a greater international role, but its current blasphemy laws tarnish Pakistan’s name and reputation. Pakistan needs to implement the aspiration of its founder Quiad-i-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah, who said in his address to the nation at the creation of Pakistan:
“You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques, or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”
For Pakistan to implement the aspiration of its founder, it must reform the blasphemy laws. These laws contravene international human rights standards, restricting freedom of speech and expression.
The UN Human Rights Committee has said that blasphemy laws are incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Pakistan is a signatory. They are often used to punish minority communities as well as Muslim communities and to settle personal vendettas and land disputes. The blasphemy laws were expanded in Pakistan between 1980 and 1986 by General Zia-ul-Haq, who added several clauses, including section 295C to the penal code of Pakistan, which stated that anyone who defamed the Prophet had to be killed.
While Pakistan has never yet carried out an execution under its blasphemy laws, this may change after the recent ruling by Pakistan’s Federal Shariat Court that the death penalty should be the only penalty for blasphemy, although the Government of Pakistan have so far refused to accept this direction. According to the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, at least 14 individuals are currently on death row and 19 more are serving life sentences, giving it the largest number of prisoners of belief.
We need to urge the government of Pakistan to address this issue head on. The blasphemy laws have been misapplied in many cases. Take the recent case of Mohammad Asghar, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) in this House. I pay tribute to the way in which she has raised that case at every level to ensure that justice is achieved for her constituent. He is a vulnerable British national with a history of mental illness and has been sentenced to death for blasphemy, having allegedly written blasphemous letters which were never posted.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, but is he aware that there is still a problem with getting even medical attention for this gentleman, who lived in Edinburgh until relatively recently and whose family lives in my constituency? He has a mental health problem, but unfortunately it appears—the Minister might wish to comment on this—that it has been difficult to get in anyone who can make a medical assessment of his state.
Rehman Chishti
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. She is right, because individuals I talk to and experts who deal with such matters say that if someone is put in custody under the blasphemy laws, getting access to them and providing them with medical equipment are concerns. Additionally, there is a risk to the safety of those who are remanded in custody in blasphemy cases, and I hope that the Minister will address that real concern in his response.
I know that the Foreign Office has raised the case of Mohammad Asghar with Pakistan’s high commission and the Chief Minister of Punjab, but the criminal justice process can take many years, which means that a large number of innocent victims are languishing in prison waiting for their appeal to be heard. That is true in the case of Asia Bibi, a 43-year-old Christian mother of five children who has been in prison since June 2009. She was sentenced to death in November 2010 for allegedly blaspheming the Prophet after an incident with fellow Muslim village workers because she was thirsty and drank water from a well and a cup belonging to a Muslim woman. Such a totally pathetic, illiterate cultural practice is contrary to the virtues and principles of Islam.
Pope Benedict said at the time that what had happened in Asia Bibi’s case was unacceptable and called for her release. Her case is still awaiting an appeal before the Lahore High Court, but the proceedings have been postponed several times. On 24 February and 17 March, the hearing was cancelled when one of the two presiding judges failed to attend. On 26 March, the counsel for the complainant failed to appear. Perhaps at the next scheduled hearing, on 14 April, justice will be rightly done in this case. It is in the interests of justice and the credibility of Pakistan’s judicial system that the case is heard at its next listing and a judgment is made on the evidence before the court.
Even if Asia Bibi is released, her and her family’s lives will be at risk. Her family has already gone into hiding after receiving death threats. In Pakistan, even an accusation of blasphemy can be enough to precipitate violence against the innocent.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing the debate. It is imperative that ordinary citizens have faith in the justice system. Unfortunately, those afflicted by injustice are not only the victims, but lawyers and witnesses. The date of 2 March marked the third anniversary of the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti, the then Minister for Minorities in Pakistan and the country’s only Christian Cabinet member. I understand that although a suspect has been detected, his trial has been jeopardised by death threats to lawyers and witnesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the international community should be pressing strongly for justice in this high-profile case, because what would impunity for Shahbaz Bhatti’s attacker say about the prospects in Pakistan for a plural and tolerant society in which diverse religious belief is honoured and respected?
Rehman Chishti
I fully concur. It is right and proper that, in any civilised, democratic country, lawyers and the judiciary must be able to do their jobs without harassment. Judges must be able to deal with cases impartially and fairly, so I agree that it would be a dark stain on Pakistan’s legal system were there not justice in the case of Shahbaz Bhatti.
Linked to that—my hon. Friend will understand this point—is the case of Salmaan Taseer, the governor of Punjab who raised Asia Bibi’s case, who was shot dead by his bodyguard four years ago. The bodyguard has still not been sentenced. Why was that case not tried in the terrorist courts, rather than the civil courts, as Pakistani jurisdiction allows? Questions must be asked about why sentencing has not been dealt with in that case, even though the governor was clearly murdered.
There have been too many cases in which those acquitted have faced the violence of the mob, for example when two Christian brothers were gunned down outside a court in Faisalabad, or in June last year when Ghulam Abbas, a Sunni Muslim, was pulled from a police station, beaten to death and his body burned, or even the case of an elderly man who was shot dead in Punjab after being released from prison. Blasphemy cases can also trigger rioting, as with the case of Sawan Masih. As The Times reported, when he was sentenced to death for insulting the Prophet during a conversation with a Muslim friend, a mob burned dozens of Christian homes and set fire to two churches.
While Pakistan’s blasphemy laws have received international criticism, reform has received less attention in Pakistan because of the risks involved in raising such issues. Those who have spoken out, such as the Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti and the politician Salmaan Taseer, have found their own lives sadly cut short.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend know whether the UK has linked the considerable amount of aid we give Pakistan to the blasphemy laws in any way?
Rehman Chishti
I do not know whether the development aid we give Pakistan is linked to its blasphemy laws, but I know that it is spent on education, which is crucial for changing hearts and minds and ensuring that Pakistan becomes a tolerant society. Those who might drift into radicalisation or extreme values can then be given hope and opportunities through education.
The violence and assassinations do not mean that reform is impossible. Although repeal might be difficult in the short term, changes could be made so that the laws are dealt with by the higher courts, rather than the lower courts, which are more susceptible to intimidation. Specialised prosecutors and specifically trained judges should also be appointed to deal with blasphemy cases. As Pakistan has specialised terrorist courts, there could be specialised courts for blasphemy cases.
There should also be a body in the Ministry of Law to authorise prosecutions so that once an allegation has been made to the police, the matter is referred to the federal body in the Ministry before a charge is filed. That way, all the facts and evidence can be assessed before the individual is charged, because once an individual is charged it can take a very long time for the case to be heard, and in the meantime the individual is remanded in custody, which poses safety concerns, as many individuals awaiting blasphemy trials have been killed in prison.
In 2012, while on a visit to Pakistan, I met President Zardari, Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, and members of the Christian community. The Christians raised real concerns about the application of the blasphemy laws leading to the persecution of the Christian community. When I spoke with 12 High Court judges and a Supreme Court judge and asked why the laws were being abused in Pakistan, sadly some of them said that there was no abuse of the laws, which raises real concerns about the impartiality of the judiciary in these cases.
The Minister might well say that the Government have raised these issues, and the individual cases, with the Pakistani Government, and that they have a close relationship with that country but can do no more than push for reform. I know that the United Kingdom has a close relationship with Pakistan, that the Government are working to strengthen and deepen it, and that there is real influence there.
I attended many Foreign and Commonwealth Office meetings while working with Benazir Bhutto from 1999 to 2007, including meetings with the British high commissioners to Pakistan, Pakistan desk officers at the FCO, and the then FCO director for South Asia, as well as meetings with Foreign Secretaries, including the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and the former right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband). In those meetings, everyone was focused on seeing a transition to democracy in Pakistan.
The United Kingdom had a key role in bringing democracy to Pakistan. If the UK can do that, then it can play a key role in pushing for reform of these laws in Pakistan. I recently met Pakistan’s high commissioner to the UK to make the case for reform. There is also an opportunity for the Government to press these concerns during the forthcoming visit to the UK by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that this issue will be raised with Prime Minister Sharif.
I also urge the Minister to work with experts such as the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, who was also Bishop of Riwand in Pakistan, and who has written and spoken extensively on how these reforms can be made. Bishop Michael recently met Prime Minister Sharif to raise this matter. I would be grateful if the Minister were able to arrange during Prime Minister Sharif’s visit a meeting between him and Members of Parliament who have expressed concern about these laws, and to ensure that experts in this area such as Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali are present.
When people have been acquitted in blasphemy cases, they often face the prospect of being killed when they are released from prison. Will the Minister consider working with other countries to accommodate individuals who have been prosecuted or persecuted for their conscience and freedom of belief and expression?
Promoting respect for human rights and freedom of religion and belief should be an integral part of our foreign policy towards Pakistan. Pakistan needs to reform the outdated blasphemy laws that tarnish its name and deprive its people of their basic human rights. I understand that the people of Pakistan themselves have suffered as a result of radicalisation and being a front-line state in the war on terror in Afghanistan. However, the Government of Pakistan must reform these laws, not only because they tarnish their reputation but because it is the right thing to do, for these laws are bad laws. I look forward to hearing from the Minister in relation to this matter.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) on securing this debate. He spoke with passion, sincerity and very detailed knowledge. It was clear that he has a great love for Pakistan and its people and wants to see Pakistan move further towards the human rights of all its citizens being properly recognised and safeguarded.
I also want to acknowledge the interventions by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The cross-party nature of these interventions will have demonstrated to anyone observing our affairs that Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, particularly in relation to the use of the death penalty, concern the entire House and no particular party or faction.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham knows, my noble Friend Baroness Warsi has raised this issue in many conversations with senior members of the Pakistani Government, who are in no doubt about the concern that we attach to human rights in Pakistan and, in particular, to the issue of blasphemy as an offence.
In the past 15 years, an estimated 1,274 people have been charged under Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. The fact that I can contrast that total with just nine reported cases that we know of between 1929 and 1982 demonstrates the importance of this issue and why my hon. Friend was right to draw the House’s attention to it today.
On the specific cases raised by hon. Members, I assure the House that we have made representations at the highest level. We continue to do so, and to do whatever we can to ensure that those who are facing charges or trials are treated properly and with respect for their human rights.
I say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East that I am advised that Mr Mohammad Asghar has had a mental health assessment but has not yet been seen by the specialist whom his defence lawyer would like. We continue to do what we can and remain in contact with his lawyer to try to make sure that representations are being made by his legal team to have his mental health concerns taken fully into account in future proceedings.
To answer my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire, we do not link our aid programme to Pakistan directly to progress on this issue, but we design the programme in a way that helps to improve both the cultural understanding of the importance of human rights and the observance of human rights in practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham pointed out that a great proportion of our aid to Pakistan is directed at improving education there. The figures show that roughly one in 10 of all children in the world who are without any schooling live in Pakistan. Raising education opportunities is one important way in which to help bring about the sort of social change we wish to see there. Another element of our aid programme to Pakistan is directed towards giving particular help to people from minorities within Pakistan, to enable them to understand their rights and to have greater opportunities in Pakistani society.
Although it is important that the relationship between the United Kingdom and Pakistan is a broad and deep one, founded on history, human contact, development assistance, trade and a common need to resist terrorism, it is also important that that relationship is such that we can speak frankly to our Pakistani friends in Government about the kind of human rights problem that we have been debating tonight. To impose a death penalty for blasphemy is a breach of the international covenant on civil and political rights and of the universal declaration of human rights, to both of which Pakistan has subscribed.
At the risk of stating the obvious, these are Pakistan’s laws and it is only Pakistanis and the Pakistan Government and legislative bodies that can deliberate upon and make changes to the laws. As an external partner to and friend of Pakistan, we try to calibrate the language that we use in public about both individual cases and the general problem so as not to make things worse for people who might be at risk of persecution. There is no doubt that extremists within Pakistan are keen to look for any alleged evidence of western interference in their country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham said, the space available for open debate in Pakistan about blasphemy—let alone campaigning—has become severely restricted over the past 20 years or so. It is important to recognise that although we are safe to debate this problem in this place or to discuss it with our constituents, men and women in Pakistan face abuse, threats, lynch mobs and even death for questioning the laws of their country in an equivalent way. We need to be careful about rushing to condemn people for at times being unwilling to stand up in public to tackle the iniquities of these laws when they would take severe risks upon themselves by doing so.
It is also evident, however, that the blasphemy laws are open to abuse for personal gain, typically in commercial disputes. Although used predominantly against other Muslims, it is true that they are also used to persecute religious minorities, especially Christians and Ahmadis. The Government believe that is an intolerable abuse of freedom of religion and belief, and we must ensure that our objections to it and our wish for reform are clearly stated.
This matter is a key part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s human rights work bilaterally, with the EU and in other multilateral organisations. My noble Friend Baroness Warsi has led the way in raising the profile of religious tolerance, both in this country and in countries overseas, including with the Pakistani leadership.
Sadly, many in Pakistani society face death threats, including journalists, minorities, Ministers and officials. Only last weekend, we were shocked to hear of an attack on Raza Rumi, a journalist and commentator known for speaking up for democracy and human rights. He survived, but tragically his driver died. Our high commissioner in Islamabad noted:
“Mr Rumi has repeatedly spoken up for democracy and, in a democratic society, everyone has the right to speak up for their beliefs without fear of attack. We are committed to supporting the Government of Pakistan in encouraging an atmosphere of tolerance, where debate can flourish.”
He ended by sending a message of support to Mr Rumi and his fellow journalists across Pakistan who stand up for free expression in the most incredibly difficult circumstances.
Rehman Chishti
The Minister outlines a scenario in which those who talk about democracy and tolerance pay the price, or nearly pay the price, with their death. Shahbaz Bhatti lost his life because he wanted reform in Pakistan. Does the Minister agree that it is important that we in the UK urge Pakistan to ensure that those who have committed such horrific murders are brought to justice? On Shahbaz Bhatti’s case, if there can be no justice for a federal Minister who is a Christian, what hope is there for ordinary minority Christians, Sikhs and Hindus in Pakistan?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Whenever we make representations on individual cases, we address not only alleged abuses of human rights—such as the withholding of access to medical treatment—but the right of any individual to due and impartial legal process, including proper legal representation.
For all the reasons I have given, Pakistan remains listed as a country of concern in the FCO’s annual human rights report. The 2013 report will be published next week, on 10 April, and I urge Members to take note of what it says about Pakistan.
Last August, Human Rights Watch noted the “impressive gains” made in Pakistan since the restoration of democracy in 2008, but warned that those gains could be lost unless the Government halted serious human rights abuses. We agree.
It is true that no person convicted of blasphemy has yet been executed, and so far all death penalties imposed under blasphemy have been quashed by a higher court on appeal. However, hundreds of alleged blasphemers remain in jail pending the appeal of their original convictions and, regardless of the outcome of those appeals, the power of mob justice has made intolerable the lives of many of those against whom blasphemy has been alleged. We understand the cultural difficulties and why blasphemy is regarded as so offensive, but we must continue to pursue the issue with visitors from the Pakistani Government to this country, as well as through our contacts in Pakistan.
It is not within the gift of Her Majesty’s Government to organise the meeting for which my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham asks, but we will put his proposal to the Pakistani Government. I certainly hope that Prime Minister Sharif will find time during his visit to have discussions with Members of this and the other place on a wide range of issues, including human rights abuses, one egregious example of which has been the focus of this debate. I hope that we and our Pakistani friends can support a debate, a review and, above all, a long overdue reform of a dangerous and iniquitous abuse of human rights.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Incapacity Benefit Migration
(10 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me the opportunity to have this important debate. I hope that during the course of it, we can tease out some of the issues that remain.
The context is that the last Labour Government, as we know, replaced incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance and income support on grounds of disability with employment and support allowance in 2008. Since then, the benefit has attracted a great deal of criticism. Under the Conservative Government between 1979 and 1997, the total number of people claiming the predecessor benefits that I mentioned more than doubled from 1.2 million to 2.6 million. That rate of increase slowed after 1997; total numbers peaked at 2.7 million and dropped to 2.5 million again by 2008.
I regularly hear Ministers say that the last Government did not care about that and that they tolerated people being on incapacity benefit, although clearly that had been happening for a considerable time. The rise under the Thatcher and Major Governments was due in part to a lack of any proper strategy to get people into work who had lost their jobs after the decline of heavy industry. There was a clear pattern: the number of claimants rose during that period in areas that had been major heavy industry areas, where jobs had been lost and people often had health problems resulting from their employment. Miners are an obvious example, but people in other heavy industries also suffered considerable health problems. During that period, people were almost encouraged to claim incapacity benefit rather than unemployment benefit, and we arrived at the situation that we had.
The position has not been static, however. It is interesting to look at the situation between 1999 and 2008. At some point over that period, 5.7 million people had their incapacity benefit closed, and 5.6 million new claims were made. The often made assertion that nothing changed, nobody moved and people were left to rot is not borne out by the statistics. There was perhaps more movement than people normally credit.
That said, the Labour Government—particularly at a time when unemployment had fallen considerably—wanted to consider who might be able to work even though they might have been unable to do their previous job. That is why we introduced employment and support allowance, which acknowledged that some people who are ill or disabled can work, given the right support when preparing to re-enter employment and after obtaining a job. It also acknowledged that although some people with particular conditions might not be able to work, others with the same condition might be able to, and that it is often better for people’s mental and physical health—I would certainly not want to dispute this—if they are working rather than staying at home.
The issue for many people is being able to get a job, being able to get support if they do get one and whether their employment conditions enable them to stay in that job. In my city, we had a BlindCraft firm, which was not part of Remploy but which, as its name suggests, had long provided for people with severe sight difficulties. It was closed on the basis that it needed a subsidy, which was a cost to the council that ran it, but it was a place where a lot of people got self-esteem, income and the feeling that they were part of their community because they could work.
The work capability assessment—the testing process that determines eligibility for the benefit—was designed to consider people’s functional capability rather than simply their condition. It was meant to identify what people could do, rather than what they could not. It was introduced in October 2008, but it soon became clear that ESA was not working as it should.
My interest in the matter was kindled when I was a parliamentary candidate between 2009 and 2010. I started from the perspective that we had to change things. I felt that the move away from incapacity benefit was not a bad idea in principle, but meeting people during that period convinced me that we had a problem. I met people who were still recovering from cancer but who had been found fit for work, as well as a young woman whose employment with the local council had been terminated because she was unfit to continue but who, within weeks, had been told she was completely fit for work.
All of that told me that far too many claimants were being incorrectly assessed as fit for work. Regardless of which Government had introduced the scheme, I was absolutely determined to come to Parliament to fight for changes to the system. At the time—this is a marker of whether the system is successful—one in 10 decisions were overturned on appeal. That is not one in 10 of all appeals, because 40% of all appeals were successful, but one in 10 decisions. That remains broadly the case today. In addition to the emotional costs faced by claimants and their families, the annual cost of appeals is about £66 million.
Those concerns were widely shared by advice agencies, charities and MPs, and were far more profound than any raised about incapacity benefit. In 2011, the Select Committee on Work and Pensions reported on the subject and concluded that the WCA was flawed. There are many examples of the impact on individuals and the distress and upset caused, and I do not intend to reprise them here, but we should never forget that this is about people.
The incoming coalition Government were largely unmoved by the concerns about the benefit that were already being widely expressed. They renewed Atos Healthcare’s contract for the face-to-face part of the WCA, reduced the time limit for receiving contributory ESA from two years to one year for people in one of the recipient groups and started the migration of people from incapacity benefit to the new benefit. The process of reassessment started with pilots in Aberdeen and Burnley in November 2010, was rolled out nationally in April 2011 and was due to be completed this month.
The Government have always given the impression that those policies would lead to a significant reduction in the total number of claimants. Upon commencement of the incapacity benefit migration pilots, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the Evening Standard that
“there are around 2 million people receiving incapacity benefit, parked out of sight of any support system and at a cost to the taxpayer over the past decade of almost £135 billion. We estimate we will find around 23% of people fit for work immediately”.
On Second Reading of the Welfare Reform Bill in March 2011, he said:
“We are picking up an incapacity benefit system in which they left people parked, never seen by anybody for years and years.”—[Official Report, 9 March 2011; Vol. 524, c. 932.]
By November 2012, he had ramped up the rhetoric to such an extent that on one occasion, he claimed that he would get all the 2.5 million people who had previously been parked on incapacity benefit into work.
Has the migration, then, lived up to expectations? We now know that between the start of the migration and March 2013, when there were at least 12 months of the process to go, 234,600 people out of 1.015 million incapacity benefit claimants who were reassessed were declared fit for work. However, the number of claimants on ESA and its various predecessors—obviously some people have still not gone through the migration process and are still in receipt of one of the previous benefits—fell by only 150,000 over the period, from 2.597 million to 2.362 million.
Clearly, the work capability assessment is designed to be tougher for new claimants than the equivalent assessment for incapacity benefit, and that has caused much of the furore. I am not in a position to say whether the number of people found fit for work under the WCA as new claimants differs much from the number under incapacity benefit, because the Department has not published the equivalent figures for incapacity benefit up to 2008. I assume—because it was the intention—that fewer new applicants have been successful. In view of that, it would be expected that the flow on to employment and support allowance, after the initial assessment period, would be lower than it had been for incapacity benefit.
It has also been decided to reduce the time limit on contributory ESA to one year for people in what is called the work-related activity group. Some time ago I asked for figures about that, and the then Minister told me in a letter that in 2012-13 alone, 82,000 people had lost their contributory ESA and did not qualify for the income-related version of that benefit. In other words, they were off benefit altogether. From the perspective of those individuals, they were losing £91 a week. Yes, they would often be in a household with someone else who was working—they probably had a working partner. However, that partner might have been working only part time. For a household that has already lost a salary through someone becoming unwell, losing a further £91 a week is extremely serious. If the number of those people is taken from the 150,000 by which total numbers have gone down, it seems that the changes have eliminated only 68,000 from claiming.
The reduction in the total number of claimants would be expected to be significantly more than the number found fit for work during the migration, but in fact it is less even given the other changes, such as people coming off contributory employment and support allowance, and despite the fact that we are constantly told that the test is tougher, more people are being found fit for work and fewer people are getting benefit. Where have the people gone? What has happened in the system?
One possible explanation is that more people are becoming ill or disabled and so the number of successful new claims is rising. That seems unlikely; there seems to be no particular reason to suppose there has been such a change in patterns of illness and disability. I suspect—I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view—that some of those who have been declared fit for work, either as new claimants or as previous incapacity benefit claimants, are not recovering. They are not really fit for work, and their health may well deteriorate after they go through the process, so sooner or later they reapply for ESA and are awarded the benefit the second time round. I presume that the Department has some capacity to check whether that is happening. If it is, then despite everything that is going on and the cost of the system, including the human cost, the outcome seems relatively small.
We do not know what happens to people, because the Department does not track that properly and, as far as I can tell, no research has been commissioned on the subject since 2010. The one piece of published Department for Work and Pensions research came out in 2011. The previous Government commissioned it to examine the impact of the changes that had been made, which was an appropriate thing to do. A large sample of ESA applicants who had been found fit for work was followed up. Nine months on from the fit-to-work decision, 29% were in employment, 22% were on jobseeker’s allowance and 43% were neither in work nor in receipt of an out-of-work benefit. A qualitative survey followed some of the people up to find out what their circumstances were. Its conclusion was that a number of people who were not receiving JSA or another benefit
“were reliant on a range of sources of income, for example, savings, cashing in insurance policies, or borrowing or being supported by friends or family. In some cases people were under considerable financial pressure and these income sources did not seem sustainable in the long-term.”
If that pattern has continued—of course, if research had been done we might know whether it had—a large number of people may have dropped out of both work and benefit. Further follow-up research would be useful. Perhaps, however, some people ended up reclaiming employment and support allowance, because their health did not improve or deteriorated while, of course, their financial position got worse. That might help to explain why the overall numbers in receipt of employment and support allowance and its predecessor benefits have not gone down as much as one might expect. I also contend that the poor quality of support for people trying to find, retrain for and hold down a job leaves people who might be able to work with little option but to reapply for employment and support allowance.
When employment and support allowance was introduced there were two categories of beneficiary: those considered, at least for the foreseeable future and perhaps for ever, to be unable to return to work—the support group—and the work-related activity group. The purpose of the two groups was to make it possible to provide assistance and support for those who could return to work in the future. There are serious concerns about whether all the people in the work-related activity group should really be there. For example, there still appear to be people in that group who have degenerative conditions that will never improve.
Even if all the right decisions were being made, however, very little assistance or support is being given in practice. Substantial numbers of people have been in the work-related activity group for two, three or four years. That does not make it seem that they are anywhere close to being ready for work, and it raises the question why people so far from being capable of working were put in that group. I have a constituent who has been in the WRAG and has been reassessed yearly for four years. She has never had more than one work-focused interview in a year. She goes to the interview and is told “That’s fine, come back in a year’s time.” If she is thought capable of work at some future time, which is what the test is supposed to have established, one would think that some further help and assistance might be given. Otherwise, the experience that she has had so far will go on year after year, which seems to be little different, in many ways, from what happened before. Perhaps the WRAG is now the new parking place, if we want to use such language.
In practical terms, of course, those things matter to people. There are individuals who receive a lower rate of benefit because they are not in the support group, even if they are in the work-related activity group for years on end. Some people lose their benefits after a year because they live with a partner or have a small pension. Specialist disability advisers in jobcentres, who help people in those situations, are not available to the extent that they are needed; the Select Committee on Work and Pensions flagged that up in several of its reports.
There are not the opportunities to acquire new skills and build the confidence and experience to make the journey from not being able to work to being able to find employment. Some of that group—those with a prognosis that they will be fit for work within 12 months—end up in the Work programme, where they join those who have been found fit for work. So two groups may end up in the Work programme: those still in receipt of ESA, but with a prognosis of being fit within 12 months, and those who have ceased to receive ESA, but previously did so.
In 2010, the Secretary of State said:
“People who are found fit for work will move directly on to our new Work programme…They will receive an integrated package of support…It will provide personalised help based on individual needs…Using the best of the private and voluntary sectors, that will help get people into work as quickly as possible.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 35.]
Ministers did not set minimum performance levels for former incapacity benefit claimants in the Work programme, but other types of claimants can be used as a basis for comparison.
By year three of the Work programme, where we are now, the Government expected 30% of new JSA claimants over 25 and 15% of new ESA claimants to be in work. Between the launch of the programme in June 2011 and December 2013, only 2,500—about 10%—of the 24,000 ex-IB claimants declared fit for work and on the Work programme had found a job; and only 760—1.7%—of the 44,000 ex-IB claimants still in receipt of ESA, but referred to the Work programme, were in work. Of those who were found fully fit for work and went into the Work programme, only 10% had found a job; of those who remained on ESA in the work-related activity group, only 1.7% had found a job.
The Secretary of State said that people would receive an integrated package of support to provide personalised help based on individual need, but the trouble is that that has simply not materialised. Ministers make much of how cheap the Work programme is, but its very cheapness means that the money available to spend per person is low, so the specialised help that former IB and ESA claimants need is not present. The financial structure of the Work programme is not operating so as to give that help.
In theory, providers will get larger payments—up to £13,500 per individual in some cases—for the groups seen as being furthest from the labour market, but even if only one in 20 of that group is sustained into permanent work and earns the provider such a sum, the money spent has to stretch over all 20 in the programme. What is on offer is simply not adequate, and that explains why so few people are being found employment through the Work programme.
Many people are suffering real distress and upset, which will have an effect on their health. For all the efforts made and the cost of assessments and appeals borne by the taxpayer, the Government’s attempts to reduce the numbers on incapacity benefit have fallen well short. If a policy is not working and not achieving its intended ends, it must be time to look at the whole system again.
When will the migration be completed? The planned completion date for the migration, which was meant to be the start of this month, appears to have been missed. The total number of incapacity benefit claimants due to be assessed was about 2.2 million in 2011, but two thirds of the way through the process, in March 2013, fewer than half that number had been assessed. In 2011, the Work and Pensions Committee warned that the DWP target of 11,000 assessments per month as part of the migration process was over-ambitious. Those concerns appear to have been justified.
One of the reasons why we are in this situation is that even sensible suggestions about the process, certainly in the four years I have been in Parliament, have simply been ignored or swept aside. The insistence that existing claimants be reassessed frequently, sometimes as often as every three or six months, not only causes considerable stress and anxiety to the claimants, but creates unnecessary expense. It means that new and existing ESA claimants and those on incapacity benefit who have been migrated all have to wait long periods for the assessments and, if necessary, for the appeals. In recent months, many of my colleagues have been reporting longer waiting periods than ever for all those categories of people.
In my Adjournment debate on 5 December 2012, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey),said:
“To ensure that people receive benefit correctly, it is important that they are called for reassessment from time to time, to ensure that they still meet the entitlement conditions. People’s health conditions can change and we need to ensure that they remain in the correct group…This active approach to the benefit is crucial and is having an impact.”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 318WH.]
Earlier this year, however, the Benefits and Work website published a leaked DWP internal memo saying that staff had been told to stop calling existing claimants for periodic reassessments from 20 January, because the system was not coping. Indeed, the Minister present today said in a recent Question Time that he had
“turned off the tap on reassessments”—[Official Report, 31 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 592.]
Given that we were previously told that the reassessments were important and had to happen—with that level of frequency—regardless of the impact on individuals, we seem to have put people through unnecessary stress and strain.
We now learn that Atos, which delivers the WCA for the Government, is set to withdraw from its contract before the expiry date in August 2015. It is easy to focus on Atos as the problem, because it has had a lot of criticism, but that energy would be better directed at the Government.
Ministers decided that Atos was capable of undertaking new claims, periodic reassessments and the migration to ESA. This year, in addition, it has also had to undertake—perhaps this is the final straw—half of new claims for the personal independence payment. On top of that, Atos was required to make savings on its ESA contract between 2011 and 2015. As far back as 2011, the Select Committee pointed out that that was problematic and that taking on such a high level of assessments while making savings would be extremely difficult. The Committee rightly queried whether it would be possible. The Minister, in his recent statement on the Atos contract, said:
“My Department is committed to learning the lessons from these past failures and ensuring they are reflected in the design and management of future contracts”.—[Official Report, 27 March 2014; Vol. 578, c. 57WS.]
I genuinely hope that that is the case, but I fear that the only substantive change proposed for the long term is the move to multiple assessment providers.
In March 2011, Professor Paul Gregg, who was involved in planning the original introduction of ESA, stated in written evidence to the Select Committee that he felt that things should move more slowly and that recommendations for change should be tested before moving ahead with migration. An important recommendation was that the Department should track what was happening. He characterised what was happening at that stage as
“an interactive process of changes being followed by a chorus of complaints, revision, a wait to see if complaints diminish, and further revision when they don’t. The current national roll out will not be the end regime but just the latest iteration in my view. This is no way to introduce such a fundamental reform affecting so many vulnerable people.”
That indeed is what we have seen: complaints, some changes, more complaints and more changes, but no fundamental look at whether the system is delivering what the Government want.
The fourth independent report, from Dr Litchfield, made recommendations about simplifying the WCA process, improving how people are treated as they go through the process, decision making and knowledge about mental health among decision makers and health care professionals. We have been here before, however, as we have with all the independent reports. As Professor Gregg said, it appears that we are simply tinkering and making changes without fundamentally improving the position.
One change proposed in the Litchfield report—I hope it will be implemented speedily by the Government—is that people in the support group with long-term degenerative conditions, and other conditions from which they are not likely to recover, should not have to be reassessed more frequently than every four years. In practice, we appear to have dropped reassessments, but only temporarily.
Oxford citizens advice bureau submitted evidence for the Select Committee’s new report. It said it had seen little change and that 90% of appeals from ex-IB claimants or new claimants are successful, which suggests there is still something fundamentally wrong with the system. Other citizens advice bureaux can give similar reports. The Government must make fundamental changes to the process before tendering for new contracts.
Reforming the audit process, encouraging the submission of proper evidence at the outset so the right decisions are made first time and requiring all assessments to be recorded are all important changes. However, we must look at the overall process and ask whether we are getting the results we intended or we are putting people through a stressful and upsetting process that makes many people’s health worse, and without getting the results we need. If the results do not improve the savings will not materialise either.
I have talked a lot about statistics and the process, but I want to conclude with the story of my constituent, Brian Green. Mr Green has suffered from depression for a considerable time. He has been on employment support allowance for nearly the whole of the past three or four years—he started on it in 2010. When he was initially assessed, he was placed in a work-related activity group. He was called back for a reassessment after six months and was declared fit for work. He had to wait for an appeal hearing and was put back in the work-related activity group. That pattern has been repeated several times over the past three years. In 2011, he was put on the Work programme with A4e for two years. These are his words:
“A4e wasn’t helpful at all in helping me find employment. Throughout the two years all I did was regularly search for jobs using their PCs. Also I was put in a group to be shown how to set up my CV, which given I have ample experience of being employed and had already had help from Careers Scotland, seemed a waste of time. After all the jobs I applied for, very few sent acknowledgements, and I was never even called to interview.”
Mr Green’s case neatly demonstrates the problems with the work capability assessment. It needs to be reformed and we desperately need to improve employment support for people with disabilities. Mr Green was on the Work programme for two years and employment support allowance for nearly four years. He is no nearer to being ready for work or getting a job than he was at the outset. That, from his point of view, is a tragedy; it is not that he does not want to work. He needs proper help and support, not a scheme that does not acknowledge where he is in his life and the mental health issues with which he needs help. He was not getting that help through his Work programme provider.
Overall, we must ask whether the system is efficient, working and—after all we have gone through—worth while. We must also ask whether it is working for individuals. On both counts, I say it is not. I hope the Government will take the opportunity to look at the whole system and make serious changes.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). The Minister and I agree that since she arrived in the House she has made a dramatic contribution on the issue of work and pensions, the way in which the Department functions and how the Labour party develops its policy on the issue.
I will start on a point of consensus. Everybody in the Chamber believes that the best route out of poverty for the vast majority of people is work. That is not as easy for some people as it is for others. Some people start life with phenomenal advantages, whether it is an uncle who can ring up somebody and secure a job for them, an easy route into an apprenticeship or an internship, or the financial freedom to leave university with no debt. We all agree that the social security system must be there for everybody in their time of need. We may think we will never have a moment of need in our life, but it may come suddenly. For some people it lasts for a protracted period, and for others it lasts throughout their lives.
Notwithstanding the sometimes exaggerated and sometimes deliberately misleading fulminations in the press, the vast majority of people want to live in a country in which we all put a little more into the pot to support those who have profound disabilities and who genuinely find it difficult to work and provide for themselves and their families. It is not just that we know that one day we might need to rely on that support ourselves. We also all agree that “need” is not the same thing as “want”. Sometimes people want financial support from the taxpayer, or from wherever else, but do not actually need it. Occasionally, the most supportive and honourable course is to say, “No, there is not going to be a benefit available to you, and you are going to have to pursue as hard as you can any work opportunities there might be.”
I am MP for an area in which a large number of people of working age—between 25% and 27%—are on some form of incapacity or disability benefit. That is much higher than in most areas of the country, largely because for a period one industry was entirely dominant. In four generations, that industry went from employing 75,000 men to employing nobody. Many people in Rhondda used to suffer from conditions associated with mining—particularly musculoskeletal and chest conditions—but today those who have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are far more likely to have it because of smoking than because they worked in a mine. However, patterns of poverty and multiple levels of deprivation are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East said, often concentrated in areas in which one heavy industry—whether shipbuilding, iron, steel or coal—dominated and then disappeared. That creates a set of challenges for how we support disabled people through the social security system.
As my hon. Friend said, Governments of both stripes—there are three stripes now, because we have had coalition, Labour and Conservative Governments—have found it challenging to get this issue right. We want to show compassion to those who are in need, but the Treasury and the taxpayer have legitimate concerns. I have a passionate desire to see as many people as possible working who would otherwise be living in poverty, because, frankly, a life on benefits is not the fullest life available to the vast majority of people. I conceive trying to get as many people as possible into work as a socialist endeavour. I say gently to the Minister that when the Secretary of State and other Ministers suggest that Labour had no interest in people on disability benefits throughout our 13 years in government, that is a misrepresentation, and in their heart of hearts they know it.
Something else on which the Minister and I can agree is that people with disabilities face significant disadvantages in the workplace. It is not just the obvious disabilities such as blindness and deafness or being in a wheelchair that make it more difficult for people to get jobs; it is often much more difficult for people to sustain paid employment when they have a condition that is not linear, continuous or regular but has a chaotic pattern. A lot of work in former industrial areas is no longer available in those areas and people are required to travel. There are significant challenges for those with disabilities and they must be taken into consideration.
Disabilities tend to come not as single spies, but as battalions. Someone who is out of work because of one disability for more than six months is six times more likely to acquire a significant mental health problem. Mental health conditions are often the most difficult to assess in terms of need, and mental health charities have argued strongly that the best route back to mental health for the majority is going into work. It provides self-esteem, as my hon. Friend said, it socialises people so that they are not isolated at home, and it improves their financial situation. When all those issues are considered, the more we can do to get more people into work the better.
One of my biggest concerns about the cost of social security when we were in government was that it was often born in the mental health of those who were still out of work because they had no opportunity to change their situation. People on incapacity benefit often experience a double layer of anxiety because their next-door neighbours may think they are swinging the lead and automatically presume that a mental health problem is not as serious as a physical problem. Clearly that is not true, but the stigma attached to mental health is significant. Some 50% of the people we are talking about may be in receipt of benefits for conditions related to mental health or with a mental health condition on top of other problems. That is one of the most difficult problems in enabling people to get into work, and tackling it is a challenge.
I also believe, as does the Minister—I have never heard him say so, but I think he agrees—that the move we undertook before the last general election away from the old set of benefits to employment and support allowance was right. It provided greater consistency and coherence and we were right to insist that instead of assessing what someone could not do, we should assess what they could do.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
As Hansard may not be able to record my nod, may I say that I completely agree with what the previous Government were trying to do before the last election? Assessment is vital, and I reiterate the shadow Minister’s point that the issue should be what someone can do rather than what they cannot do. That should apply to life in general, not just to work.
Chris Bryant
I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention. I am aware from my experience in the Rhondda that historically, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, when mines closed there were many men with musculoskeletal or chest problems related to their work in the mines who could no longer work in a mine or do heavy labour, but there were other jobs they could have done. In many places, it became part of the mindset that someone was either fit for work or unfit for work. Those were the only two categories. I wonder whether the phrase “fit for work” contributes to that. This may be a trite comment, but Douglas Bader worked. I know many constituents with profound disabilities who work hard every day, but others find it much more challenging. There is a mindset in some parts of the country that has been difficult to transform over the years.
Some years ago, before ESA was introduced, a man came to my surgery having been assessed as fit for work. He told me angrily that that was disgraceful because he had had a heart attack 14 years previously and two major operations, and had been on incapacity benefit since then, but he had worked all his life. I suggested that he had not worked all his life, and he said he had worked all his working life. I said that I was not a doctor and could not assess whether he was fit for work because I had no means of working that out. He said, “I knew you’d be rubbish. Everyone tells me you’re rubbish, and the worst of it is that the Labour party is so pathetic in the benefits it gives me that I have to go and mix cement on a building site every day of the week.”
What was shocking about that was not so much the fact that he did not quite understand the system and that he was clearly fit for work because he went to work every day and did manual labour, but that he thought that was a legitimate argument to put to a Member of Parliament. Fortunately, he had already given me his name and address so he was not in receipt of benefits thereafter. I hope he went on to get a proper job that was more fulfilling for him instead of going through the black market. If the ingenuity that some people have used in the black market were used in the legitimate market, we might be a far more entrepreneurial nation.
Mike Penning
I am sure the hon. Gentleman was coming to this, but we have all heard of such examples face to face in our constituency surgeries, although perhaps not so abruptly. Such behaviour is damaging to those who receive benefits because they are not capable or working, and infuriates disabled people who are in work and have worked all their lives. I am thinking of a proud Welshman, Simon Weston, who we all know has given so much to his country and was recently voted the nation’s most heroic figure. Not only is he an entrepreneur, but I understand that he has never taken sickness benefit at any time, even though his injuries are profound.
Chris Bryant
I do not want to leap from that to the suggestion that someone who is in receipt of disability benefit is not a hero. The situation often depends on someone’s family and community support, the nature of their condition and so on. Sometimes a single condition may be predictable in how it will play out for the rest of the sufferer’s life. Other conditions, particularly degenerative ones, are much more chaotic and their effects cannot be predicted.
Sheila Gilmore
There will always be people at all levels of society who try to exploit the system. Many people who are being found to be fit for work may need much more attention to their special situation. Many people with learning disabilities need a lot of help and support to hold down jobs. A voluntary organisation in my constituency runs a café and bakery, and trains learning-disabled youngsters, but the problem for many of them is that working in mainstream catering would be difficult, and they could not cope with McDonalds or Starbucks.
Chris Bryant
I do not go to Starbucks any more because of tax issues, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I do not want to stereotype the Rhondda, but my surgery is held in a room with thin walls and by the end of the encounter with my constituent we were shouting at one another. When he left the room saying he was going to report me to the police—I was not sure what for—everyone queuing outside applauded me, not him, because they had the same attitude as everyone else: stealing from the system is fraud, and it is theft from other people. There is no innocence, and in one sense it is the worst form of theft. However, the level of such fraud is small, and such stories are sometimes blown up out of all proportion so people get the impression that everyone is at it, which is not true.
Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)
The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has just embarked on an inquiry into fraud and error in the benefits system, and I would say that the extent of that is fairly small. However, may I give my hon. Friend another example? Somebody came to my office as a cleaner through the new deal for disabled people. There are people who have been out of work for 10 years, as she had, with mental health problems. She thought she would never work again, but the correct support—with a job broker, with someone just building up her confidence—got her into work and she ended up expanding from that job into other jobs as well. As it turns out, she had Parkinson’s disease, not mental health problems, and I have never seen anybody so relieved to get a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, because she knew what that was and she could cope with it. However, the key was the specialist, detailed help that she got as an individual, and my concern is that that is perhaps what is lacking in some of the new areas that the Government have introduced in order to try and get people with disabilities into work.
Chris Bryant
I would go further—I think that sometimes the organisations that are most fleet of foot, most sensitive and come without some kind of governmental sanctions regime, such as those in the voluntary sector, can be the most successful at enabling somebody to gain the self-esteem that enables them to get into work.
I remember working with the Prince’s Trust in my constituency with kids who are at risk. People there were saying that they could not understand why kids who really enjoyed coming on some of the courses that they were doing, which were all about confidence building and so on, all turned up uniformly late—not uniformly late in the sense that they all arrived at the same time, but that they always arrived late. It was only when they worked out that the kids could not tell the time that they realised what the problem was: because the kids were in families where nobody was in work, nobody was used to getting up in the morning to go to work. That is why a basic skills assessment is vital.
Of course, schools should be dealing with all these issues, but sometimes that does not happen. It is a fact that we still have a significant number of people who are, to all intents and purposes, innumerate and illiterate, and tackling those basic skills and providing an assessment very early on is one of the important changes that we need to bring in. I worry that the voluntary sector, which has had a very tough time since 2010, certainly in my patch, is not able to provide the support that leads to people being able to get into jobs, as it was able to do historically.
Chris Bryant
I will, but I am conscious that I have now gone on for quite a long time.
Dame Anne Begg
I thank my hon. Friend.
It has become an afternoon for anecdotes. When I was teaching, there was a young boy who could not turn up to school on time. I was his form teacher, and I discovered that the rest of his family had all been schoolphobics, that his parents did not work, and that although they did have a clock at home they could not work out how to set the alarm. I got him to bring it in and that is exactly what we did. We were able to keep him in school a bit longer than we managed with his siblings.
Chris Bryant
I cannot set the alarm on nearly any of the things in my house and I have not got children to be able to do it for me—they are basic skills. I will move on, if I may.
It is also true, as I think we all agree, that poor initial decisions end up being expensive for everyone. I think Governments of whatever stripe would like to be able to improve the quality of initial decisions. As was found in the run-up to 2013, £26.3 million had been spent on the tribunal service. The Government have changed the way in which that operates, and I shall come to that later, but when 19% of appeals are still overturning the initial decision, a lot of money is effectively going down the drain on behalf of the taxpayer. I suppose some lawyers would say that paying them is not money going down the drain, but if we could improve the quality of initial decisions, whether that is down to form-filling, ensuring that the correct information is available from the very beginning, or whatever it is, we would be saving ourselves time and energy, and most importantly, saving a great deal of heartache for a considerable number of people.
I shall move on to some of the problems that exist at the moment. It is uncontested that Atos has not been a great success. I think Atos itself would say that—in fact, it has done. It has effectively put its hand up and said that it has not been a great success. We note that the Government are now ending the deal; that is an established fact, but I would like to ask the Minister a few questions and if he is not able to answer fully now, I completely understand, because the questions are relatively technical, but I should be grateful if he would write to me.
The Minister referred, I think in questions on Monday, to the fact that Atos will be paying him—
Chris Bryant
No, not him personally—paying the Government. Will the Minister clarify exactly how anyone is arriving at a figure and what that figure is likely to be, because it will undoubtedly affect whatever the tender process is for a new contract? Will he also lay out exactly how he thinks that new tender process will go? Does he have a time scale for it? When does he think that might be in play?
I note that Atos said that it has been worried about death threats for its staff and so on. Even if we were to take out of the equation the fact that lots of people think Atos has done a terrible job—people have been able to point to some terrible mistakes and hideous instances where people who were either already dead or nearly dead were being told that they were fit for work, which has undoubtedly inspired a great deal of anger—whoever is doing work capability assessments in future will have to make unpopular decisions, by definition, because they will be turning some people down. What assessment have the Government made of the provision that there needs to be in any tender process, or for that matter, in future ongoing relations with whatever company will be doing this, to make sure that there is protection and that security is not compromised?
Capacity is another issue. Certainly by mid-2010 or by the end of 2010, it was pretty clear that there were not enough doctors and other medical staff—or, for that matter, administrative staff—to be able to do the work at Atos, so how do we make sure in any future tender that that does not happen all over again? It means that even if the Government want to say, “We are going to do more assessments,” they are unable to do so, which is why, because of the capacity problems, the Government have had to change what they are doing about people who are already coming up for reassessment after two years. Making sure that the capacity is there from the start is an important part of it.
As I said, the Government have now suspended reassessment for those on ESA for two years. I wonder what the cost of that is now going to be. I presume that the Government have made an assessment of that, because they would have been presuming that the reassessment was there for a purpose and that it would take more people off ESA. I wonder how many people they reckon will stay on who, in a sense, they would have thought otherwise might not be on it. The Government made assumptions when they introduced the policy, which they are presumably now unbundling. What are they assessing the future cost to be for each of the future years? How many people does that affect? How many people on ESA for two years would have been being assessed now, but are not being assessed?
On cost, the Office for Budget Responsibility report states:
“ESA is higher by £0.8 billion in 2014-15 and 2015-16…because the latest evidence suggests the caseload is higher than we assumed in December, despite substantial upward revisions made at that time. We have also updated the modelling on repeat work capability assessments, which has increased our assumption about the length of time and number of claimants waiting for a repeat assessment, meaning more claims continue for longer”.
It may be that I have just answered my previous question to the Minister, because it may be that the £800 million is all to do with not doing the extra reassessments—in which case, does he have any idea when we might be able to start doing reassessments? That might be a capacity question, but that £800 million is a significant cost.
Sheila Gilmore
Given that reassessments have been delayed or suspended—out of necessity, it appears, rather than conviction—does my hon. Friend agree that this might be an appropriate time to look again at reassessment periods? Part of the criticism has been that people, even those in the support group, are being called back for reassessment relatively frequently, and that that is an expensive, distressing and probably pointless activity. Given that we now have a hiatus in the system, is it not time to look at all that again?
Chris Bryant
I think that we always have to keep the matter under review; otherwise we are wasting time and energy on a process that is just injurious to the health of people whom we are trying to help, and at a cost to the taxpayer that does not provide a dividend. So, yes, of course the Government should do that. I was just hoping that the Government would be able to say whether the £800 million relates to the people who would have been reassessed. How many people will continue to receive benefits even though the Government have basically decided that they should not?
I want to talk about access to mental health services, because one of the issues that arose in Health questions earlier this week was that there has been a significant fall-off in the availability of talking therapies, and there is clear evidence that talking therapies, whether cognitive behavioural therapy or others, are predominantly concentrated in areas where there are fewer people on the various kinds of incapacity benefit. That is rather unhelpful to the process of trying to get people with mental health needs back into work, so I wonder what strategy the Government have to try to ensure that it is addressed.
Incidentally, one other thought occurs to me in relation to the point that my hon. Friend has just made. There are only so many doctors in Britain. If the Government decide to take a lot of doctors into Atos to make assessments of people’s fitness for work, there is a danger that they will simply be taking doctors out of the national health service, and that may have an impact locally on whether people are being helped back into work by getting better, rather than being forced back into work by being assessed by Atos. Of course, that is where there has to be a joined-up Government approach.
I want to ask the Minister about the Work programme, because, as my hon. Friend rightly said, there is a significant problem in that respect. The Secretary of State effectively admitted that in Work and Pensions questions on Monday. I think that he had hoped and expected that a much larger percentage of people would have been helped into work through the Work programme. Of those with disabilities, it is something like 5%, which is a very low level.
Of course, we all know from our constituency case load that some people need dramatic intervention to be able to get into work. Drug and alcohol abuse, leading to and coming from chaotic lifestyles, often makes it very difficult to assist people, even though there are many people with addictions of various kinds who are fully functioning in a work environment—we have only to look at the history of Parliament to see that. What assessment have the Government made of how the Work programme could be improved to enable more people with disabilities to get into work, or do the Government believe that the situation is not improvable and that 5% is what the level is going to be?
Dame Anne Begg
Is my hon. Friend aware that the specialist employment programme for people with disabilities is called Work Choice? One would expect that the majority of the people on Work Choice, if not all, would be in receipt of ESA and be in the WRAG group, but actually almost all of them are on jobseeker’s allowance; they have been found fully fit for work. That might explain why Work programme providers are not being successful in getting ESA claimants into work—that specialist help is not for them; it is for people who are closer to the labour market than they are.
Chris Bryant
Which is the next paragraph on my sheet of paper. We just managed to hear it from a different voice, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I want to move on to the issue of discretionary housing payments. The Papworth Trust has found that over three quarters of councils include disability living allowance in assessing people’s eligibility for discretionary housing payments. That is against Government advice. Of course, because the system is discretionary, it is not Government-enforced, but that is one of my concerns about the discretionary system. People can be living on either side of a street, and just because one council decides to include DLA in the assessment and the other decides not to, they are treated differently.
My anxiety about that is that it leads to people not trusting the system in the end, because people do not know the specifics of who is in charge of deciding what. They just think, “He’s got it; I haven’t got it. That seems unfair.” When that is alive in the system, confidence in the whole of Government and the welfare or social security system falls apart, especially because the clear evidence now is that people with disabilities are less likely to be granted an award under the discretionary housing payment system than people without a disability. That seems to be at odds with what I presume the Government would like to achieve, so I wonder whether their advice needs to get stronger, whether we need to lose the word “discretionary” or whether the system needs to be restructured.
Dame Anne Begg
The Work and Pensions Committee’s report that was published yesterday on support for housing costs states:
“We recommend that the Government issues revised guidance to local authorities which advises them to disregard disability benefits in means tests to assess eligibility for DHP awards.”
Chris Bryant
That rather chimes with what I was suggesting, and the Minister has just winked at me, for the record, so I can only assume that that was not a personal recommendation, but—
Chris Bryant
I hope it is not a plank. Anyway, I hope that we are singing from the same hymn sheet.
I have one more serious point, which relates to mandatory reconsideration. Obviously, the Government have changed the system of appeals. We have now moved on to the system of mandatory reconsideration. There seems to be some evidence that that has meant that quite a lot of people have shifted on to JSA, because they are nervous about what will happen. That may, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) says, take them away from further support, rather than end up enabling them to get into work. I want to ask the Minister how many people that now applies to. Is the number of people seeking mandatory reconsideration higher or lower than the previous number of people who would go for appeal?
Because the Department has no fixed limit on how long the process can take, I wonder how long on average it is taking for a mandatory reconsideration to be arrived at. Someone would be in limbo, potentially, for a considerable time. We have seen that in other areas. For instance, assessments for the personal independence payment have been taking three months, six months, nine months, a year and so on. I think that all of us would be rather hesitant about allowing the Government to have a blank sheet on this and to reply whenever they felt like it.
I would like to talk about sanctions, but a debate is happening in the main Chamber on sanctions, so I think that we will leave that issue to hon. Members who are there. As I said, I hope that where the Minister is not able to provide instant answers, he will write to me. If he has not replied at the end, I will write him a letter, so he will have to write to me then anyway.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)
It is a pleasure to respond under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, to this wide-ranging debate on incapacity benefit migration. Let me touch on the last point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He knows me well enough to know that I will naturally write to him and other colleagues on any points that I do not manage to cover in my contribution. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing the debate. She and other colleagues know that my door is open. She has used that opportunity to come to see me in the past, and I am sure that she will come to see me in the future.
If it is okay with you, Mr Turner, I will not go back over the history of this matter, because the hon. Lady covered it eloquently. I will touch on some of the relevant issues that are around now; obviously, some of them have existed since the system’s inception.
There will be some Members and other people who passionately believe that assessment should not take place. I disagree with them, and I think that the hon. Lady is agreeing with me, from a sedentary position, that assessments should take place; I think that that is her position.
Sheila Gilmore
I certainly agree that assessment should take place. I am not sure how, without assessment, we could establish that people were unwell or incapable of work, however we want to define it. The question is really about the process that we use.
Mike Penning
I wanted to give the hon. Lady the opportunity to clarify her position. In some cases, face-to-face assessments are what is required, unlike on IB where it was hardly ever face to face.
Sheila Gilmore
On the question of face-to-face assessments, one of the interesting points has been that sometimes they are better and sometimes they are not. It depends on the person. One of the things that I have come across in the past year or so is that quite a large number of people have been reassessed on paper rather than face to face, but have been placed in the work-related activity group and later discovered that not all the information was in the paperwork in the first place. I can see that we need both.
Mike Penning
As I said, there are some who agree with us that in certain circumstances, face to face is required. I passionately believe that face to face is not required in every case, whether in the WCA or in PIP. We have to make sure that we get it right. There are people who do not think that that should be the case.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
I am very sorry that I have not been able to be part of the debate, because I was taking part in the sanctions debate. On that point, would it be possible to consider face to face if a different decision was due to be made? If someone was going to continue in the support group or in the WRAG, they would not need to be called in for the face-to-face interview, but if a different decision was to be made, that is when a face-to-face interview should take place.
Mike Penning
I am not certain that that would work, not least because decisions that had been made would also have to be reversed. The decision must be based on the evidence that is before the decision makers. I agree with many of the things that the shadow Minister has said, but it is crucial that we remember that this is not about diagnosis. The diagnosis has been done by the clinical experts. In response to the shadow Minister’s concern about a drain on NHS doctors, a lot of the assessments are done not by doctors, but by trained clinicians.
Like other hon. Members, as a constituency MP I have had correspondence about the matter, so when I took on this portfolio a couple of months ago I desperately wanted to dig down and look at it. Dr Litchfield’s report came out almost simultaneously with my arrival in post. One of the first things I did was to go off to a tribunal and listen, as a member of the public can do, to two cases being put before the tribunal judges. As I left the building, I said to my officials—I have said this in the House before—“Clearly, we are not getting decisions right.” The first case that I listened to should not have been at the tribunal; we should have sorted it out before. In the second one, interestingly enough, the Department had not seen the evidence until the morning of the hearing. Extra evidence was produced, and the judge had used his autonomy to waive the four-week rule and allow it to be presented.
I have been urgently looking at how we get the right decisions by ATOS professionals being sent to our decision makers. The final decision is made by the Department, not by Atos; Atos makes a recommendation and we look at it. I looked carefully at the quality of the decisions that were coming from our contractor, which in this case was Atos. I have said on the record several times that I was not happy at all about the quality of the decisions. Before I arrived, the Department had been putting pressure on Atos to improve quality, so we were also starting to get an ever-increasing backlog. So many cases that could have been decided through paper assessments were instead being assessed face to face. Even then, people were appealing, and because we were getting the assessments wrong, we were losing the appeals.
We will always lose some appeals, as the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), knows. It is for judges to weigh up what the will of Parliament was in making regulations, and apply that to the case before them. I was keen to make sure that we got this right, because we are talking not only about taxpayers’ money, but about individuals. The shadow Minister described the welfare system as a safety net. For some people, it will be there from birth onwards, and for others it will come into play because of circumstances, events, traumas and illnesses over the course of their lives.
The shadow Minister was quite right to say that there will be things that I will be unable to answer, and other things that I will not be able to discuss because of confidentiality within contractual obligations. Regarding Atos’s decision to exit its contract early, I was pressurised by colleagues from both sides of the House to remove or sack Atos. One of the shadow Minister’s colleagues said that I should sack Atos. The problem with that was that because of the form of the contract, we would almost certainly have had to pay compensation to Atos, and I do not think that anybody inside or outside the House would have wanted us to do that. We have negotiated an early exit for Atos and have arranged for a team to work alongside its management as it continues to do the work while we exit it. I cannot simply turn off the tap, because we would have no capacity. The biggest issue with Atos has been with its management controls, rather than with its front-line decision making.
Dame Anne Begg
Under the original time scale, the migration from incapacity benefit to ESA was meant to have been completed by now—I believe the date was the end of March 2014—but a sizeable number of people have yet to be migrated from IB to ESA. The original contract must have worked to the original time scale, so Atos surely was not still contracted to carry out the migration, even though it was contracted to do the reassessment. Surely, an automatic break must have been built into the contract; otherwise, Atos would still have been employed even when there was no work to be done, because it was meant to have been finished by now.
Mike Penning
Clearly, as the Select Committee knows, Atos was already getting into backlogs. That is why I talked about turning off the tap—stopping the reassessments and doing only the new applications, to ensure that we got those right. By doing that, we were allowing people who needed it to get through the system as fast as possible, and we intended to get to those who already had it later, because the backlog was becoming intolerable and unacceptable.
When I made the statement last week, we also issued an invitation to tender. We had already put out an invitation to tender for multiple contractors. We cannot go as fast as we would like with Atos leaving, so we will now be seeking a tender from a single contractor, and within that process there will be the decision to move to multiple contractors. That gives us a great opportunity to make the contract into a better format than we had before. We can deal with capacity issues by making sure that we get the flow correct and take care of the backlogs. Atos is still committed to working on the backlogs as we approach the date of its exit. There are issues around the software that we are using, which is Atos’s software and which we will continue to use. The new contract gives us an opportunity to migrate to a new supplier with the capacity and the skills that we need. We also have an opportunity to learn from Dr Litchfield’s report so that we get the assessments right, particularly when it comes to mental health, which the shadow Minister mentioned.
Sheila Gilmore
There clearly is a capacity problem, which has been building up. The Select Committee raised that point back in 2011, when there were problems with potential capacity. Will it be more expensive to take on a new contractor to get the capacity right, or does the Minister feel changes could be made, for example on reassessments, which could keep the cost down, similar to that with Atos?
Mike Penning
I think we are going to have to wait for the tenders to come in, but we are asking for a contract of a different sort from that let to Atos in 2008. No Minister coming into government is allowed to see advice from a previous Administration. With hindsight, that is probably right, although I have struggled with it in the three Departments I have been in over the past four years. One difficulty is that I therefore cannot see the assumptions that Atos made, based on the bid, about how it was going to make a profit out of its part of the scheme. I can now see such detail going forward, and there will be assumptions in the contract about what the profit margins will be, but the biggest thing for me will be putting capacity and quality together simultaneously. If we do not get that right, we will end up in the position to which the hon. Lady alluded.
Capacity is important, but—this falls partly within my ministerial portfolio, but not wholly—so is getting individual help to those moved on to the Work programme. Getting that right is really important. I will write to colleagues with more up-to-date figures on where we are on that, but it is crucial that we give confidence to people who want to go into work that they can go into work. Many people think that they cannot work until we give them the confidence and skills to return to the workplace or to enter it for the first time.
Something that I have touched on a couple of times, but will mention again, is the fact that when the Prime Minister asked me to take on my new portfolio, which is very different from how previous Administrations, and indeed the current Government, have previously run things, I asked for responsibility for the Health and Safety Executive. One of the biggest reasons was that I am an ex-firefighter, so I have seen how health and safety can work to make the environment we live in much safer, but I have also all too often seen health and safety being abused and used as an excuse for why something cannot be done, whether in the leisure or commercial sector. I was passionate in thinking that if I could look after health and safety along with my other responsibilities, I could break some of the myths about why people cannot get back into the workplace, or ensure that disabled people already in the workplace did not have to leave. We are currently working on that, and that has gone down particularly well with commerce and a lot of disability groups.
There have been some myths out there about why people cannot work. It is all about confidence. That is why I have been taking the Disability Confident campaign around the country, asking employers to give people an opportunity and to have the confidence to take people on. The larger companies have always been good at that, but small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ more people in this country than all the corporates put together, have some real confidence issues. We have been ensuring that they have as much confidence as possible.
[Mr Adrian Sanders in the Chair]
It has been a real eye-opener for me to be in a position to see Atos coming away from the system and the new contracts being issued. I have tried desperately to ensure that we listen, because no matter what our political colours, I passionately believe that we need to get this right. That is true not only of me—Ministers and Governments come and go—but of all of us, because we must get the right system in place for those who need it. It must be right for the taxpayer and for those who need help.
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for about 30 seconds, Mr Sanders. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on her debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
Convergence Programme (UK)
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)
Article 121 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires the UK to send an annual convergence programme to the European Commission reporting upon its fiscal situation and policies. The UK’s convergence programme will be sent to the European Commission by 30 April. This deadline was set in accordance with the European semester timetable for both convergence and national reform programmes. The Government support the European semester which plays an important role in EU surveillance of economic and fiscal policy.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires that the content of the convergence programme must be drawn from an assessment of the UK’s economic and budgetary position which has been presented to Parliament by the Government for their approval. This assessment is based on the Budget 2014 report and the most recent Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook and it is this content, not the convergence programme itself, which requires the approval of the House for the purposes of the Act.
Article 121, along with article 126 of the TFEU, is the legal basis for the stability and growth pact, which is the co-ordination mechanism for EU fiscal policies and requires member states to avoid excessive Government deficits. Although the UK is bound by the stability and growth pact, by virtue of its protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, it is only required to “endeavour to avoid” excessive deficits. Unlike the euro area member states, the UK is not subject to sanctions at any stage of the European semester process.
Subject to the progress of parliamentary business, debates will be held on 9 April for the House of Lords and on 30 April for the House of Commons in order for both Houses to approve this assessment before the convergence programme is sent to the Commission. While the convergence programme itself is not subject to parliamentary approval or amendment, I will deposit advanced copies of the document in the Libraries of both Houses on 3 April and copies will be available through the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.
The UK’s convergence programme will be available electronically via HM Treasury’s website after it is sent to the European Commission.
Anti-Avoidance Provision
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
The Government are fully committed to tackling tax and national insurance avoidance and will take the necessary steps to protect the Exchequer and maintain fairness in the tax system.
We have introduced legislation which amends the agency legislation in the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978 (“the 1978 regulations”) to tackle avoidance, through false self-employment facilitated by intermediaries, of national insurance contributions (“NICs”). We have also introduced legislation, in the Finance Bill 2014, to tackle the same problem in relation to income tax.
The amendments to the 1978 regulations will come into force on 6 April 2014, as will the legislation relating to income tax (Budget Resolution No. 11, recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for 25 March 2014).
The income tax legislation is supported by a targeted anti-avoidance rule (“TAAR”) which is intended to ensure that those workers who would be employees, but for the imposition of artificially constructed intermediary arrangements, are treated as employees for the purposes of tax.
I am today announcing that we intend to introduce a TAAR for NICs, with retrospective effect to 6 April 2014, at the next available legislative opportunity. This will support the 1978 regulations and ensure that those workers who would be employed earners but for the imposition of artificially constructed intermediary arrangements are also treated as employed earners for the purposes of NICs.
The TAAR for NICs will follow the TAAR for income tax, details of which can be found at clause 6, section 46A of the Finance Bill 2014 which was introduced into the House of Commons on 27 March 2014.
UK Guarantees Scheme
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
UK Guarantees was announced in July 2012 with enabling legislation, the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012, receiving Royal Assent on 31 October 2012.
UK Guarantees was launched in response to constraints in the long-term debt markets by providing a sovereign-backed guarantee to help infrastructure projects raise debt finance. In exchange for a guarantee a fee will be charged to the borrower, determined by the nature of the guarantee and the risks inherent in the project. Guarantees for up to £40 billion in aggregate can be offered under the initiative.
The Government are confirming that it has approved a guarantee for £257 million to Merseylink plc for the design, construction and operation of the Mersey gateway bridge PPP project.
The Government will report to Parliament on the financial assistance given in line with the requirements set out in the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012.
Statutory Guidance for Schools
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)
Today I am publishing updated statutory safeguarding guidance for schools and colleges “Keeping Children Safe in Education”. Effective immediately, it has been sent to all schools and colleges and replaces “Safeguarding children and safer recruitment in education (2006)”.
“Keeping Children Safe in Education” provides guidance on: safeguarding systems including schools’ child protection policies and the appointment of a designated safeguarding lead; the checks necessary to carry out recruitment safely; and dealing with allegations of abuse made against staff members.
The guidance informs those working in schools and colleges about: types of abuse and neglect; where to find further information about the signs that a child may be being abused; how to refer a child about whom they have concerns; and signposts them to further, detailed information on specific safeguarding issues including female genital mutilation, child sexual exploitation, cyber-bullying, mental health, and radicalisation.
The publication of the new guidance follows a public consultation last year. I have also brought forward an amendment to the school staffing regulations (2009) to enable schools to choose the obligatory safe recruitment training that best suits their particular circumstances.
These changes will ensure school and college staff are clear about their statutory responsibilities and able to exercise their professional judgment with confidence in keeping children safe.
The new guidance will be available will be available on the Government website www.gov.uk.
Agriculture and Fisheries Council
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I represented the UK at the EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 24 March. Richard Lochhead MSP was also present.
Promotion of agricultural produce
The Council agreed its political approach to national co-financing and selection of programme proposals for promotion of agricultural produce. It set the ceiling for EU funding at 75%—85% in times of crisis—with producers making up the difference and national co-financing removed, in line with UK lobbying.
Management of sand eel—establishment of a total allowable catch (TAC) for 2014
The Council adopted by qualified majority a Council regulation setting up TACs in 2014 for sand eels and blue whiting. The UK abstained as the Council regulation had not cleared parliamentary scrutiny.
Coastal states consultations on mackerel and EU/Norway bilateral consultations
The Council discussed the outcome of the negotiations. The deal on mackerel reached between the EU, Norway and the Faroe islands 12 March was a major achievement, bringing to an end the long-running international dispute over the management of what is the UK’s most valuable stock. The Commission confirmed that discussions with Iceland would continue in the hope that it would also join the agreement.
The conclusion of a deal on mackerel also enabled bilateral fisheries agreements to be reached between the EU and Norway and the Faroe islands. These allow the joint management of shared stocks and give access to each other’s waters for 2014.
Overall the three agreements were supported by member states, though some expressed their concerns about the extension of the fully documented fisheries (FDF) scheme for North sea plaice in the EU-Norway agreement. The UK welcomed the agreements given the benefits they will provide for UK fishermen and responded to the concerns on extension of the FDF scheme by highlighting the importance of pilot projects to prepare for the discard ban. The Commission supported the UK position on FDF.
Processed meat labelling
The Council was divided on indications of the country of origin or place of provenance for meat used as an ingredient. During discussions three broad camps emerged: the UK and others favoured the current voluntary approach; a second group favoured mandatory labelling and a third group said that further discussion was necessary. The presidency decided to convene a working party to examine the report and member state positions further.
Organic production
The Commission reported on its organic production proposal which aims to support the increased demand, while taking account of consumer standards, the risk of fraud and the need for transparency. It also encourages spending of both pillar 1 and pillar 2 funds on research and innovation in this area. There was no discussion, and the presidency confirmed that the proposal would now go to working group.
Fruit and vegetables
The Commission presented its report on the ED fruit and vegetable production sector following the reform of the sector in 2007. ED Fruit and vegetable consumption had reduced since the reform. However the percentage of the EU’s fruit and vegetables grown by producers that are members of producer organisations had increased during the same period. The Commission stated that it would bring forward specific proposals, with a focus on improving the long-term competitiveness of the sector. Again, there was no discussion but the presidency confirmed that this topic would be on a future Council agenda.
Any other business
Honey breakfast initiative
Slovenia explained its “honey breakfast” initiative which aimed to educate children on the importance of bees.
International year of family farming
Hungary reported on the convention it had hosted to celebrate the international year of family farming. The Commission noted that it would run a conference on the same topic in Bucharest next month.
Rice
Italy and other member states said that their rice sector was under pressure from imports from Cambodia. The Commission noted that the import tariffs imposed on developing countries had been zero rated to encourage development and that it would keep the situation under review.
Dairy sector
Member states maintained the same positions outlined in last month’s discussion on the situation in the dairy sector. The Commission and presidency again noted the lack of a qualified majority in favour of the “soft-landing” on quotas and that the Commission would report in June.
Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing
Spain, supported by other member states, said it was firmly committed to combating IUU fishing, but was disappointed with the implementation of the regulation. They also had concerns about the transparency of the process for listing non-co-operating countries. The Commission disagreed that the process for listing non-co-operating countries was opaque or that they were not committed to the regulation. The Commission confirmed that the regulation would be reviewed next year but for now it was focused on its implementation.
Pharmaceutical Price Regulation
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Earl Howe, has made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to announce today the publication of “Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme: 12th Report to Parliament”.
The pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS) is a voluntary agreement with the pharmaceutical industry which is used to control the prices of branded medicines to the health service and limit the profits that companies can make on their health service sales. The Department published the first report on the PPRS in 1996 following a comment by the Health Committee that the
“Department of Health should introduce greater transparency into the PPRS”.
Since then, the Department has published a report to Parliament on the operation and management of the scheme most years, the last report being February 2012. This latest report includes an update on the outcomes of the 2009 scheme which terminated on 31 December 2013 and outlines the early operation of the 2014 PPRS which started on 1 January 2014. In addition, the report provides an update on progress in implementing the provisions under the 2009 scheme supporting the uptake of innovative medicines recommended by NICE, the Government’s broader support for the life sciences industry and commitment to the ongoing implementation of innovation, health and wealth.
A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.
Social Science Research Committee (Triennial Review)
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I am today announcing the publication by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) of the findings of the triennial review of the Social Science Research Committee (SSRC). Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring, and improving, the accountability and effectiveness of public bodies.
The SSRC is an advisory NDPB that provides the FSA with independent expert advice on the use of social science evidence.
The review concluded that the functions performed by the SSRC are still required and that it should be retained as an advisory NDPB. It also identified a number of areas of good practice and made 13 recommendations to improve the efficiency and impact of the committee’s work and to ensure it continues to meet the highest standards of governance.
The review was carried out with the participation of a wide range of internal and external stakeholders, including the committee’s chair and members and the FSA chief scientist. The FSA is grateful to everyone who contributed to the review.
“Triennial Review of the Social Science Research Committee” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. It is also available at: http://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2014/apr/triennial-review-ssrc
Private Pensions
(10 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
I intend to lay the Pensions Act 2011 (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2014 before Parliament in due course to come into effect in July 2014. These regulations make a range of provisions for benefits that were treated as money purchase, but that do not fall within the clarified definition in section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011. At the same time the Government’s response to the public consultation on the regulations will be published. The consultation received wide-ranging and detailed responses and we have taken the time to consider them fully.
Following the consultation I have assessed the implications of the retrospective application of the legislation very carefully. I can now confirm that in most cases transitional protection will be provided in respect of events occurring between 1 January 1997—the date from which section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011 is effective—and the date these regulations come into force in July 2014. This means that schemes will not need to revisit past decisions in almost all cases, but will ensure that in the future members are protected if their schemes are unable to pay benefits that have been promised.
Full information about other changes made to these regulations in response to the consultation will be included in our formal response when it is published.
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships that if there is a Division in the Chamber the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Housing: Leasehold Reform
Baroness Maddock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform leasehold legislation.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, in preparing for this short debate I have, as usual, been grateful to the House of Lords Library for its research. I am also grateful to the Consumers’ Association’s Which? and to the liberal think tank, CentreForum.
The previous occasion on which I spoke about leasehold reform at any length was during the passage of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. However, in 2014, further reform is still needed and is very much a live concern for the millions of people living in leasehold properties. The issue continues to be raised in both Houses of Parliament.
Leasehold is the norm for many people, particularly those living in urban areas. The majority of new homes being built are flats, bringing the whole matter of leasehold further to the fore. The current system vests too much power in the hands of freeholders. As a Liberal, I always want to devolve power to as many people as possible, so I want to see leaseholders having a proper say in the management of their homes.
What is the problem? England and Wales are almost unique in operating a system of leasehold tenure on many bought properties. The system is aimed mainly at the need to ensure the upkeep and management of communal areas and, sometimes, to enforce positive covenants affecting all the residents. CentreForum’s report, Reforming Leasehold for the 21st Century, described leasehold as a “quasi-feudal system”.
One of the biggest problems is that most freeholders do not manage the properties themselves but employ management agencies to carry out their duties. These agencies have no legal responsibility to the leaseholders, and therefore have very little incentive to provide a reasonable service. In addition, these management agencies face very little competition. If leaseholders are dissatisfied with the services provided by these agents, there is nothing that they can do unless they can persuade the freeholder to make a change. The right to manage is a little known provision which allows leaseholders to manage a group of properties without having to buy the freehold. However, it requires 50% of leaseholders to support such a move. CentreForum suggests that, to encourage the take-up of this system, service charges should include information about the right to manage.
Usually, leaseholders have little or no contact with the freeholder; everything is done through the agents. There is an option to take cases for change to the leasehold valuation tribunal, but it can be a very time-consuming process and there are issues around costs. One of the big problems that often face leaseholders is unexpected major works. Leaseholders can find themselves in severe financial difficulty simply because the owners—or, very often, the managers—decide, for example, to replace all the windows, with little notice or consultation, leaving leaseholders with an unexpected major bill.
Which? Money highlighted other areas of concern in a 2011 article based on consumers’ evidence. One such area was the cost of insurance. Which? Money had unearthed examples of leaseholders saving up to 60% on their insurance premiums simply by cutting out the middleman and arranging their own cover. There have been suggestions that managing agents take a cut on arranging insurance and that they are not interested in getting a good deal. There is a lot of evidence around this and I am sure that my noble friend Lady Gardner will highlight some of these issues. In short, however, a lack of transparency around charges and no independent regulation has meant that there is very little pressure on agents to give leaseholders a fair deal.
As I indicated in my opening remarks, more and more people are living in leasehold properties than ever before. In 2012, an estimated 5 million people were living in 2.5 million leasehold properties in England and Wales. An estimate of the total charges they are paying comes to about £2.5 billion. In the 10 years to 2012, the number of cases of dissatisfaction that leaseholders have taken to the leasehold valuation tribunal has increased by 400%.
Has anything been done to assist leaseholders? During the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, the coalition Government accepted arguments that stronger protection was needed for leaseholders. I am pleased that, as a result, all letting and management agents now have to belong to a recognised redress system—I expect the Minister will give us an update on that. Also, the Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Act 2014 became law last month. It was a private Member’s initiative that the Government supported, which removes the requirement for a tenant to sign any notice of claim to a new lease in person. This is particularly helpful to anybody with a disability.
I am also aware that the Government committed to spending up to £2 million every year between 2011 and 2015 on a tenant empowerment programme for tenants in social housing. The Minister will no doubt expand on this when she responds. I know too that the Government have asked the Office of Fair Trading to undertake a market study into property management services. However, it is very disappointing that the study will not include an assessment of the legal framework that underpins freehold and leasehold management arrangements in England and Wales. The study also excludes local authority and social housing; the reason given for this by the Government was, they said, because registered social landlords will be responding to the needs of residents. I wonder if that is really a good enough reason, particularly when you can now find—in new developments—private ownership, shared ownership and social housing all in one building. I will be interested in the Minister’s comments on this.
We should be particularly concerned about elderly leaseholders. Most sheltered housing developments are sold on a leasehold basis. What assessment have the Government made about how well this sector is functioning? There is quite a lot of anecdotal evidence on this subject but there is a serious lack of authenticated facts. I wonder how the Government are keeping track of what is actually going on in the area of leasehold.
What could we be doing now? The Liberal Democrats have supported the creation of a national register of landlords; without the knowledge of who is leasing property, it is very difficult to take action against rogue and dodgy landlords. We also need to create greater drive towards the use of commonhold, which was introduced more than 10 years ago, particularly given the make-up of our housing stock. The main problem is that commonhold is not available unless 100% of owners agree—this is, of course, difficult to achieve. During the passage of the 2002 Act, I supported my noble friend Lord Goodhart in his lead in moving that the threshold be reduced to 80%. Meanwhile, CentreForum has proposed that, in order to build a critical mass of commonhold properties and to establish the system as part of the norm, all new blocks of flats built after 2020 should be sold as commonhold. As I indicated earlier, we should definitely also have better promotion of and information about the right to manage for people living in leasehold accommodation.
Lastly, it would be good to look at helping leaseholders when they are charged by the freeholder when they want to make improvements. The freeholder can receive a second benefit from this because, invariably, the improvements increase the value of the property. When the lease is then renegotiated or sold at a higher value, the freeholder benefits. CentreForum has proposed that the right to charge for permission to make improvements should only be available when the freeholder can prove that the charge requested would reduce the value of the property.
This is an important area and my noble friend Lady Gardner will give us a lot more vital information about it. I am disappointed that people who I know care about this subject have not been able to be with us for this debate. I hope that, when the Minister responds, we will not hear too many excuses for why we cannot take action in this important area of property ownership.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I have asked many Questions in your Lordships’ House but the only Question I have ever asked in all those years on which there was not a single supplementary from any part of the House was about leasehold. No one knew what I was talking about. As I came out into the Lobby after the Question a number of people came up to me and said, “I would have loved to have come in on your Question but I had no idea what it was about”. That is still the problem with leasehold: people really do not understand it until they are already caught up in it, particularly if they are caught up in it in the wrong way because they did not look at the lease before signing it or they were so thrilled with what they found that they put aside any worries about the future. However, it is important that we all begin to understand it more. It affects more than 5 million people, mostly in London but all over the country. Even in political terms, people should be aware that 5 million votes are worth having. It is important.
My interest is declared in the register: I have owned a leasehold flat for a good many years. I bought it for the day when I could not manage stairs—but I still have not got there. At the time, all those years ago, we had a residential porter who took any parcels, let people in and did all sorts of useful things. What happened? The head lessee became a person who was interested only in making a profit out of it. They decided that the flat which the caretaker was living in was too expensive for that money to be wasted like that, so they fired the caretaker and now have someone who comes in for two or three hours a day and the money from that is now in the head lessee’s pocket. There has been too much of this profiteering at the expense of residents in these blocks. For years we had a qualified building surveyor who would look at the block and decide what should be done. No one ever looks at it now and it is ready to disintegrate if they do not get something done pretty quickly.
Important issues arise all the time. There are more than 2 million leaseholders who pay, in all, over half a billion pounds annually in service charges. That is a lot of money. Who is holding the money and how secure is the fund? Many of these issues have now been addressed by the fact that we are to have a redress scheme. I ask the Minister to confirm that that will be in place soon. The process of implementation has been a bit slow when you think about how long ago we passed the scheme.
Transparency is perhaps the biggest problem for everyone. People do not know what they are being charged for and whether or not it is legitimately required. In the block to which I referred, where I have a flat, they organised a new insurance policy without consulting anyone. Whereas last year residents of flats had to pay an excess of £250 on any claim, this year the excess has gone up to £2,500. The head lessee, who had the policy, has renegotiated it without any consultation so that every tenant in the flats will be liable for so much money that he will have to pay very little at all because we will be paying for it in the £2,500—a tenfold increase. I think that that is very unreasonable.
In 2009, in supporting better regulation, the British Property Federation drew our attention to the fact that Sections 152 and 154 of the 2002 Act were due to be in force at that time. They are still not in force. I ask the Minister what is happening with those sections. They are protective provisions and, as they are part of our law, they should come into force.
Leaseholders are entitled to know how their money is spent and transparency is one of the major issues. Sir Peter Bottomley has done quite a lot in the Commons on this issue. People are entitled to ask questions and get answers that are honest and can be established. There have been too many occasions—cases on the record—where people have found that they are making payments for things such as service charges but half of that money goes into the pocket of the head lessee or freeholder, who has made a deal with or even owned the builders or insurance company used. It is all quite wrong that that sort of thing should be happening and that leaseholders do not get honest answers when they ask about it. It is all being covered up all the time.
In 2007, Mark Prisk—a previous Housing Minister—put down an amendment to the then Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill. He talked about “rogue” and “unscrupulous” agents and how the industry,
“now handles over £12 billion of people’s money annually”—[Official Report, Commons, Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill Committee, 24/4/ 07; col.191]—
and so on. I am therefore glad that, last year, we at least agreed the amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act which has brought in registration of managing agents. Although that will be very welcome, I ask the Minister to confirm that it is still online to come in this year. It really has been a fair time already. There are good agents but protection for leaseholders is at a pretty low level and, as I said, there is no protection until that comes in, along with a redress scheme, which will be very valuable.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, I am a great supporter of commonhold developments. Leasehold property exists only in the UK and Hawaii. It is therefore pretty rare, and I do not consider it acceptable. However, the point about the 100% requirement is that 100% of the people in an existing block of leasehold flats need to want to change. That is very wrong. I have had Parliamentary Answers from different Ministers at different times which say that, “Yes, it is wrong and it should not be; it is impossible”. They say it is impossible to get 100%, and I am quite sure that that is right. All you have to have is a rogue landlord paying one person to abstain or deny and you have lost your 100%. A simple majority would be all right, but even a bit more than that might be possible. There are so many of these blocks where people live overseas and getting hold of them is not easy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, please excuse me if I repeat something that I said earlier because running in and out does not help. It is high time that we had a consolidation Act. Since 1985 we have had about a dozen new housing-related Acts—I have been in the House since 1981 so have participated in every one of them—and each one has changed parts of the previous one. It has reached the point where even solicitors specialising in these matters have to consult Act after Act to be sure of the present legal position. The law should be clear, simple and capable of being understood by ordinary people. The Government should ask the Law Commission to review all these property Acts with a view to consolidating them. It would be better for the country and better for everyone. However, the Law Commission does nothing unless the Government ask it to because the Government have to meet the costs. The Law Commission does nothing now under any other circumstances.
Having served on an industrial tribunal for 20 years, I am a great believer in the tribunal system. Something has gone very wrong with leasehold valuation tribunals since the basic £500 maximum that you were asked to pay has been changed to a £500 minimum to bring your case at all, and with possibly very heavy costs after that. We also have the practice, which I have mentioned in the House before, whereby, win or lose, the head lessee or freeholder charges his costs in the tribunal back to the leaseholders. That was never the intention. The intention was that a leaseholder would not normally have to meet any costs and this would be a basis on which everyone could present their own cases. There is now a new tribunal system, as from last October, and I think we will be hearing a lot of dissatisfaction about this very shortly.
Rereading Hansard from the time made me wonder where the leaseholder tribunals went so wrong. The intention was for this to be a simple and inexpensive system. I am really quite surprised to find problems because I drew attention to the possible dangers at the time and half those dangers have arisen. Leasehold property has really complex arrangements. I would like to see it abolished but, on the other hand, that is a long way off. Every little bit of progress helps and it is important that we press on and teach people more about what it is all about.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I should draw attention to my interests, as recorded in the register, as the owner of a leasehold property.
I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on securing this debate, if not the usual channels on its timing. We might have been advantaged if we had enjoyed the benefit of the seminar kindly organised for next week by the noble Lord, Lord Best, although we should thank him for circulating the related information from Which?.
We should also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on her continuing display of expertise and persistence in this area, and indeed on educating noble Lords, including me, over the months and years.
One of the recent questions posed to the Minister at the other end and reiterated today by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, was whether the Government have any plans to consolidate the current legislation relating to leasehold and commonhold interests. Given the plethora of legislation touching on these issues, this does not seem an unreasonable request. Of course, we have added to that legislation recently but in a helpful way through the Leasehold Reform (Amendment) Act, which has made easier the processes of collective enfranchisement and leasehold extension. Consolidation would not just be a matter of legislative tidiness; it could contribute to addressing one of the oft-cited bugbears about the sector, which is that it is complex—it has been described as quasi-feudal today by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock—and is not always fully understood by those who engage in it or, seemingly, by their advisers.
We have also added to the body of law via the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act, mentioned by other noble Lords, concerning access to redress schemes relating to letting agencies and managing agents. This was successfully campaigned for by my noble friend Lady Hayter and others, and eventually accepted by the Government. Like other participants in this debate, perhaps I may ask the Minister to give us an update on where these matters currently lie. The redress schemes are not a substitute for proper comprehensive regulation but are a step along the way.
Our deliberations are also taking place in advance of the outcome of the OFT market study into residential property management services, including, I understand, circumstances where the freeholder is a local authority or a housing association. We support this market study and await its outcome later this year, but our preference would have been for a wider study to encompass letting agents and indeed an assessment of the legal framework which underpins freehold and leasehold arrangements in England and Wales. It is this legal framework and the intermediaries that it can engender which are the source of the problems that are oft-cited and have been referred to in our brief debate today.
The typical arrangements are familiar to us all. Leaseholders have the right to occupy and use a flat, including subletting, for the term of the lease. They would generally be responsible for everything within the four walls of the property. The structure, land and communal parts will be owned by the freeholder, who will typically meet the related maintenance and repair obligations and other services via a managing agent, with recharges to the leaseholders by way of a service charge. As we have heard, the managing agent has no legal responsibility to the leaseholders. These flows and relationships are at the heart of the debate that we are having today.
Of course, there are variations on these arrangements, with leaseholders collectively owning the freehold through a collective enfranchisement arrangement. Do the Government consider that there are any residual barriers to these rights being used effectively?
There is also commonhold, which has also been referred to—a system of ownership which allows individuals to own properties with common ownership in perpetuity and collectively to control their management. However, as Which? points out, this has not taken hold as a form of ownership. It muses that this may be because developers have an interest in both developing and then managing leasehold property. The 100% requirement for converting existing leasehold properties to this basis would seem unduly restrictive in practice. We support Which?’s desire for this issue to be covered by the market study.
Whatever the precise formulation, we know that the residential leasehold market is huge. The Association of Residential Managing Agents—ARMA—estimates that there are between 1.6 million and 1.8 million flats in England and Wales. Some estimates put that figure considerably higher: 5 million was the figure referred to before. Given the inexorable growth of the private rented sector and the buy-to-let market, those numbers look bound to increase. We have heard that currently leaseholders might spend in the region of £2.5 billion a year in service charges. In terms of market concentration, ARMA claims over 300 corporate members that, between them, manage around 900,000 flats. About a dozen members are national companies with major portfolios of between 20,000 and 100,000 units. These numbers illustrate why the market study is appropriate.
The scope of the study is about determining: whether managing agents and freeholders have the same interests as leaseholders in keeping down maintenance costs and buildings insurance, and how best value can be achieved; whether leaseholders can sufficiently influence the appointment of managing agents or the extent of their services; whether the market for managing agents is competitive and whether there are practical barriers to switching providers; whether the choice of contractors to provide services is influenced by financial commissions—with insurance in particular—and associated company agreements; and whether there are barriers to leaseholders exercising their right to manage their own property. It touches on a number of the key issues and effectively considers the extent to which the lack of statutory regulation can exacerbate market deficiencies.
A number of other important issues have been highlighted but are not covered. There is the broad issue of the advice that consumers get about owning leasehold property, especially around the length of the lease, the ground rent, restrictive covenants and how service charges are determined. Again, as Which? pointed out, it would be helpful if the market study covered the effectiveness of the leasehold valuation tribunal and the government-funded leasehold advisory service, particularly in circumstances where the number of cases before the tribunal has increased dramatically. Obviously, one clear way to improve standards in the sector—a matter we were working on before the last general election—is a regulatory regime for managing agents. At present, anyone can set up as a managing agent without any relevant qualifications or experience.
Perhaps the Minister could say why the Government consider that a satisfactory state of affairs. What are the problems for government in requiring all managing agents to meet minimum standards of competency and professionalism, to have to declare all commissions received and to follow a code of conduct, particularly on the issue of transparency, which has been raised? Would the Minister accept that that would be an effective way of tackling inflated service charges and challenge connected company exploitation? We should applaud the efforts of ARMA in introducing a voluntary scheme as a step along the way to statutory regulation.
The focus of my presentation so far has been on the relationship between leaseholders and freeholders and their responsibilities and obligations—effectively the leaseholder as the customer. It is impossible to consider comprehensively the issue of leasehold reform without reflecting on the private rented sector more generally where the tenant might be seen as the customer. These relationships will sometimes be between tenant and freeholder, and sometimes between tenant and leaseholder, and thereby governed to an extent by the lease. As the Government acknowledge, the private rented sector comprise some 16.5% of all households, amounting to some 3.8 million homes in England, including some 1.1 million families with children. It is bound to grow and play an important role in meeting housing need.
We want to see a private rented sector that provides decent, safe, and secure homes at a price that people can afford. However, at present too many landlords prey on vulnerable tenants and too much of the private rented stock is non-decent. This undermines the work of the majority of landlords who strive to do the right thing. That is why we wish to develop a national register of private landlords—it is good that we have common cause with the Liberal Democrats, at least on that—designed to assist local authorities in their work, as well as helping HMRC, for example, push back against tax evasion in this sector.
We know that the leasehold/freehold divide has been a source of tension over many years. It is true that legislation over the decades has improved statutory rights for lessees but there remain serious practical issues which regulation can and should address.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Maddock for securing this debate this afternoon. Although there have been very few speakers in today’s debate, we have covered quite a bit of ground. I will certainly do my best to respond to all the points that have been raised. However, I may need to supplement my response with a letter and I will do that if necessary.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, estimated that there were about 5 million leasehold properties in England. The Government estimate 3 million, but that certainly makes up a significant proportion of the housing market. I should declare from the start that I am an owner-occupier of a leasehold flat and I understand, as someone living in a property that is part of this regime, that it can be a complex and technical legal system. I certainly recognise along with others who have spoken today that it can cause problems for leaseholders and freeholders alike. But not everyone who owns a leasehold property experiences a lot of problems. What is important is that we strike the right balance in a way that recognises and protects the rights and interests of both leaseholders and freeholders and that we make sure that these rights are kept up to date with changing realities without making things more complicated, burdensome or expensive.
As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, just acknowledged, where we can make changes that are perhaps small in and of themselves, we do so where we think that that will be beneficial to people. The most recent example was when the Government supported a Private Member’s Bill that cleared up an important anomaly. Until that Bill, leaseholders who were unable personally to sign certain legal forms could not extend their leases or take part in buying the freehold. That small change will make a big difference to many elderly or vulnerable people, who will be able to appoint someone to sign on their behalf in the future.
My honourable friend and colleague the Housing Minister, Kris Hopkins, is already aware of some concerns about the leasehold sector that have been raised with him by Members of the other place. He is keen to listen to concerns, hear what people have to say and explore whether there is any possibility of addressing problems within the sector. Today’s debate is timely and I intend to report back to him on the points that are raised.
In addition to responding to the questions that have been asked, I think that it is important to remind noble Lords what the Government have done and are doing to make sure that the system is working effectively, that it is—to refer to the point powerfully made by my noble friend Lady Gardner—simple to understand and that it delivers high standards and easy access to remedies when things go wrong.
First, perhaps I may highlight the complexity. It is important to remind noble Lords that to help leaseholders to navigate the leasehold system, the Government provide access to free, independent legal advice and information through the Leasehold Advisory Service. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, as well as my noble friend Lady Maddock and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, sought to draw some comparisons with commonhold. They highlighted what the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 offered as an alternative to leasehold for properties such as flats.
In the past few weeks, in answering different questions and responding to a couple of debates on this topic, I have studied more about this subject than ever before and have improved my understanding. It is important to make the point that, when buying a property or a home in a building that is shared with other properties, it is difficult to conceive of a system that will be perfect and address everybody’s competing needs and rights. Although commonhold certainly offers some advantages, it also has some disadvantages. When people own leasehold properties, it is possible for them to challenge some of the decisions which are put forward and which may affect them, whereas once you are in a commonhold situation, it is very difficult, if you are in a minority, to challenge decisions made by the majority of commonholders in that block.
My noble friend referred to conversion from leasehold to commonhold and asked why that has not happened so far. We do not have any plans to review the rule that requires a 100% sign-up to commonhold from the different property owners in a block. We think that that is right, and it was debated in great detail during the passage of the legislation. As someone who owns a property in a block, I feel that, if such a significant change were proposed, everybody with a property in the block would want the decision on it to be unanimous.
As we know, commonhold rather than leasehold is also available as the tenure for new constructions, but there has not been a great deal of take-up on that. One thing that I can claim a little credit for is that I have asked my department to press a bit harder, through the forum that it holds on a regular basis with the construction industry, in exploring why the industry is not pursuing commonhold as an option.
While I am on the subject of commonhold and conversions, I should respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about barriers to collective enfranchisement. That is obviously a slightly different arrangement, going from leasehold to freehold. Collective enfranchisement requires a number of criteria to be met, but these protect the interests of both leaseholders and freeholders. We are not aware of any residual barriers to collective enfranchisement at present.
I move on to the costs associated with leasehold, which is often raised as a concern for leaseholders, and it has certainly been raised by noble Lords today, in the context of public sector—that is, local authority—landlords where people have bought a former local authority property. We have recently consulted on proposals to cap excessive service charges for leaseholders living in former local authority properties whose landlords—that is, local authorities—benefit from Decent Homes funding, and we will be responding to that consultation shortly. We certainly remain open and receptive to further proposals to make sure that public sector leaseholders have fair and reasonable charges. My noble friend Lady Maddock asked about the OFT market study on property management services and I can confirm that it includes management in local authority and other social sectors in its work.
We are running out of time rapidly. This is such a wide and diverse topic that I cannot do it justice in the time available.
On the quality of service provided through managing agents, codes of practice have to be approved by the Secretary of State, and my department is currently working with the Association of Retirement Housing Managers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on updating the codes. We also support initiatives to raise standards and the quality of service across the residential leasehold management sector. We welcome the self-regulatory scheme being introduced by the Association of Residential Managing Agents to raise the professional standards of its members. We will be watching with interest to see how effective and successful it is.
On the right to manage, I say to my noble friend Lady Maddock that 4,000 right-to-manage companies are registered at the moment, but her point about raising leaseholders’ awareness of this option is interesting and I have taken particular note of it.
Transparency and the information that is available to leaseholders is an important issue, which was raised by all noble Lords. Where leaseholders do not already receive service charge information as a condition of their lease, they have a legal right to ask for a summary of the relevant costs from their landlord. However, some interesting points were made on transparency and I shall reflect on them further.
My time is up, but as I have a few minutes left and have some issues to address before the next debate is due to start—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
For the information of the Committee, the next debate will start at 3 pm.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we had a communication from the Government Whips’ Office that these debates were to be rolling, because of the vote.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My sincere apologies to the Committee. That is my mistake completely and I offer my apologies. I have gone over my time. There is a considerable amount more information that I can provide, which I will do in a letter to follow up this debate.
The key point that I want to make in conclusion is that, while we do not have plans to reform the legislation in this area, my honourable friend the Housing Minister is very interested in the concerns that are being raised and we certainly look forward to hearing further following the meeting that will be chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which was referred to. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their patience today.
Abortion
(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Knight of Collingtree
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to investigate reported law breaking by those carrying out terminations of pregnancies.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)
My Lords, normally, when a Bill has been debated, taken through Committee and approved by both Houses, it is signed by the Queen and becomes an Act. After that, those breaking it will face possible arrest, fines or even imprisonment—unless it is the Abortion Act 1967. I well recall its passage; there were firm reassurances that its strictures would not permit abortion on demand. Today, more than 7 million abortions later, we have exactly that. So much has the Act been watered down and its safeguards ignored that it is now being quoted to warn those who will soon vote on euthanasia. It is an apt comparison because both deal with life and death. The warning is that the triple lock of the Falconer Bill is modelled on the wording of the old 1967 Act and will turn out just as ineffective.
The Abortion Act is four pages long and contains only seven sections. At least four seem to be broken regularly, yet it is impossible to get details of investigations into this law-breaking or about any resulting prosecutions. Section 1 lists a vital condition on which abortion became legal: that two doctors must see and examine the patient and certify that the operation would be legal. The object of that was to ensure that—on such a serious matter as the death of a child—a second opinion had been sought and two doctors separately concurred. Last year, the NHS’s own inspectors found bundles of forms signed by doctors in 14 hospitals, certifying that they had seen and examined the patient. Their medical and independent judgment agreed that she met the conditions for a legal abortion. All these doctors lied. I understand that there were 76 of them. They had neither seen nor examined the woman; they and the doctors who subsequently performed the abortion broke the law. Falsifying official forms is perjury.
Never, until now, has it been acceptable to pass the job of dealing with law-breakers from the British courts to those representing the professions or trade unions of the very people breaking the law. The GMC dealt with that case, which would have been fine if it had just been a question of medical ethics but it was not—it dealt with the law of the land. The medical profession is now saying that since it thinks that a second opinion is unnecessary, it will not seek one. Surely it must be Parliament, not doctors, that decides what the law says. The Act is unequivocal: involving two doctors is its first condition. Nowhere does it give a proviso that any part can be ignored if anyone disagrees.
Section 1 also rules that no abortion is legal unless the woman’s heath or mental state would be at risk without one, or if her existing children faced physical or mental abnormalities of some kind if she did not have it. Are such judgments routinely made? I have met and talked to a number of girls who have had a termination. Not one has ever been able to tell me of tests or questions about that, or checks on their children’s likelihood to be made ill, mad or slightly mad. Very few of those I spoke to had any children at all.
Then there is Section 4, giving everyone the right to refuse to take part in an abortion if they have a conscientious objection. That is the law. The truth is that the NHS does not and will not employ any midwife who has such an objection. A very senior doctor in this House told me only last week that large numbers of them have emigrated. I have never heard even a whisper of any legal action against those who break Section 4. Why is that? The Act certainly does not deny a conscientious midwife the right to a job.
What investigations are being done on allegations and evidence that abortions happen because the unborn child is a girl? Last week, the Prime Minister stated firmly and clearly that that was illegal. If it is, surely checks should be going on into whether these reports are true. I wonder whether his statement was based on the words of my noble friend Lord Howe:
“Abortion on the grounds of gender alone is illegal … The Abortion Act is very clear on that point”.—[Official Report, 12/2/14; col. 639.]
I have checked the Act a number of times and all the amendments very carefully. There are no such words or clarity in the whole lot of them. It would amaze me if there had been, for none of us dreamed then that it would become possible to know the sex of an unborn child. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, would never have sanctioned gender abortions.
Abortion law surely lacks clarity on matters that need to be clear. Furthermore, it suffers from those who play with words to the extent that it permits terminations that were never intended to be legal. In no way do I seek in the debate this afternoon to discuss the right and wrongs of abortion—there are many different views in this House on that. I do not mean to go into any of that. All I ask is that the law, as passed by Parliament, should be clear and upheld. Surely that is not an unreasonable request.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness for securing this debate. She will forgive me if, for reasons of time, I am not more fulsome in those thanks. I also thank the staff of the Library, who have produced a very helpful briefing note.
Debates on abortion are fairly rare, for the obvious reason that they are seldom debates. Discussion is polarised between those who regard abortion as a form of retrospective birth control and those on the other side who regard it as a form of anticipatory infanticide—and never the two find common ground. I hope that today might be an exception, because I think we are all united that abortion for gender selection reasons is wrong—the question is what we do about it. The noble Baroness has already quoted the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and Ministers in the other place, and it is clear that the Department of Health has echoed that point of view. In fairness to the former Director of Public Prosecutions, who has so far refused to prosecute anyone, it is worth while quoting what he says in defence of the department:
“I am bound to observe that the limited medical guidance; the approach apparently endorsed by the HAS/1 form that an abortion can be performed without either medical practitioner having actual direct contact with the woman requesting an abortion; and the past practice of pre-signing HAS/1 forms present real difficulties in bringing a prosecution of doctors for failing to carry out a sufficiently robust risk assessment of their patients in cases such as these. Whether the current arrangements should be altered or tightened is, of course, a matter for others”.
I hope that we will discuss today how we can address those legitimate points raised by the DPP. It would be helpful if the Minister would indicate that the practice of pre-signing forms will be outlawed from now on, and confirm the figures as regards doctors actually seeing a patient before signing an abortion form. Questions on this issue were asked in the House of Commons by Sir Edward Leigh in successive months—I think on 13 January and 13 February. On one occasion he was told that only 46% of doctors had seen the patient in these circumstances. He was subsequently told that the Government did not have the figures because they were not available. Will the Minister clarify whether the figures are available?
I hope we are all in agreement that the real problem is that Section 1(1)(a) is so widely drafted that it permits abortion on demand. That was certainly not what the promoters of the 1967 Act wanted. However, on the other hand, some Members of the House of Lords may want that now, in which case I hope they will bring forward legislation and introduce that measure by the front door, not the back door.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I remind noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate and that all speeches should be limited to two minutes.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, for initiating the debate. This is a subject on which she and I hold very different views, but I admire the vigour with which she pursues her very strongly held convictions.
We are having this debate at least in part because of the ongoing campaign by the Daily Telegraph and the sting operations which it has mounted in support of that. Noble Lords will have seen the briefing from the Library. I think it is evident from that that the law is being upheld and that the DPP has yet to find a case where the law has been broken in this regard. It is also clear that the professional bodies—the GMC and the BMA—are dealing toughly with any professional about whom there is the remotest suspicion that they may not be upholding the law in full.
I want to make just one simple point. The NHS is under enormous pressure, particularly as regards maternity services. Given that, there is a legitimate question as to whether or not it is necessary to continue to require two doctors to authorise a procedure in this regard. I am not asking for the law to be changed on the basis of opinion but rather that research is done—that is, comparative research with regard to other countries where the authorisation of two doctors is required—to see whether scarce resources could not be used more effectively in advancing the healthcare of women and children. I am not asking for the law to be changed in any other respect. I think the other four criteria that have to be met should remain. I simply question whether, in this day and age, it is still necessary for two doctors to make that decision.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, as a mother with daughters and granddaughters, I find it unbelievable that aborting on grounds of female gender is not explicitly illegal; it certainly seems discriminatory.
As immediate past president of the BMA, I quote its guidance that,
“it is normally unethical to terminate a pregnancy on the basis of fetal sex alone, except in cases of severe x-linked disorders”,
which, of course, affect the male foetus.
The Minister recently stated that updated guidance is being prepared for abortion providers to make it,
“abundantly clear that gender selection is illegal”.—[Official Report, 12/2/14; col. 639.]
However, guidance alone is not legally binding. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ clinical guidance on induced abortion notes:
“Services should identify issues which make women particularly vulnerable”.
The RCOG includes domestic abuse and gender-based violence here and goes on to recommend that women should be referred to appropriate support services. Do we know whether this actually happens?
In January, the Independent attributed a reduction of between 1,400 and 4,700 expected live births of girls in the UK to sex-selective abortions. The Minister has in a previous response questioned the statistical analysis of the data, raising doubt about the Independent’s conclusion that sex-selective abortions are being performed. However women’s rights groups such as Jeena International and Karma Nirvana, which represent some of Britain’s minority women, are clear that gender abortions are happening here in the UK and that numbers are far from insignificant.
The reports available suggest that this is predominantly a cultural problem. Does the Minister agree that analysing the data regionally and by ethnicity could alert us to areas of concern? Will the Minister advise whether the Government would consider changing secondary legislation by amending regulations, thus providing clarity about the illegality of this apparently growing practice?
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, whatever our differing positions on the ethics of abortion, it must be a matter of widespread concern if there is the appearance of a long-standing gap between the spirit of the Abortion Act and the interpretation of the law. This is a matter of particular interest to many in the churches because of a theological commitment to the sanctity of human life, including potential human life.
Two particular areas of concern have been brought to my attention and I want to raise them briefly. The first is gender-selective abortion, which is a matter of great sensitivity, not least in cities such as Leicester, where I come from. Will the Minister help us by commenting on the implications of the press reports and indicating whether evidence to the effect that this is happening is available to the department?
Secondly, abortion on the grounds of serious handicap or disability is currently the subject of some renewed debate raising concern that it is contrary to the spirit of equality legislation as undermining the status and role of disabled people in society. Will the Minister comment on the concern that while foetuses are not afforded legal personhood the law on this is somewhat incoherent as foetal deaths prior to 24 weeks are classed as miscarriages but must be registered as stillbirths after that? Will he comment on the recommendations in last year’s report by the Pro-Life APPG on abortion on grounds of disability which included recommendations for either reducing the upper time limit on abortion on grounds of disability from birth to make it equal to the upper limit for able-bodied babies or repealing Section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act altogether?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this debate. I want to deal very briefly with two points. First, I have seen it suggested that abortion on the ground of sex selection is lawful, or not unlawful, in this country. I do not believe that is correct. The law is quite clear that an attempt to procure abortion before the Act was unlawful and now the Act allows abortion to be lawful on four grounds, none of which is sex selection. Therefore it is absolutely clear that the law prohibits that as a ground of abortion in this country.
Responsibility for seeing that the law is observed in this area, as in other areas, is with the prosecuting authorities, including the police and the DPP. The DPP has drawn attention to difficulties in relation to the arrangements that have been sanctioned by the Department of Health in this connection. My noble friend Lord Howe may have some comment to make on that. I cannot see how a medical practitioner could pre-sign the form in a way that conforms with the statute. My noble friend said that the law is construed in such a way as to allow abortion on demand, but the law does not do that at all. It is quite wrong to suggest that the signing of the form could be done responsibly without proper knowledge of the situation of the patient at the time.
Baroness Rendell of Babergh (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, for introducing this debate. Worldwide, women are still not the favoured gender. When my husband was in the Royal Navy and was stationed in Hong Kong soon after the end of the Second World War, he saw the bodies of drowned baby girls floating in the harbour. This was long before the arrival of the cheap ultrasound machine which is imported from China to India. Two thousand female foetuses are aborted every day in India.
This is not new. Demographic statistics first collected in the 19th century in some Indian villages show that no girl babies were found alive. A girl is regarded as a drain on a family’s resources. Some are killed before or after birth to avoid paying a dowry when she would have married, and some because parents lose a potential pension when a daughter leaves her home to join her husband and she can no longer care for them in their old age.
There are now reports that sex-selective abortion is happening in the UK. A study by University of Oxford academics has suggested that Indian women in the UK were aborting more female than male foetuses between 1990 and 2005. That is so concerning that the Council of Europe has suggested that member states stop giving parents information on the gender of unborn babies until late in pregnancy. Such preference for sons over daughters has tipped the natural 50:50 balance in some ethnic communities.
Will the noble Earl give an assurance that the Government take this matter seriously and will he undertake to keep it under close observation, bearing in mind that unsafe abortion results in 47,000 deaths worldwide?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I would also like to thank my noble friend Lady Knight of Collingtree for instigating this debate, but I am coming from a slightly different angle. At a time when medical science is advancing by the month and extremely pre-term babies who are born before 28 weeks are able, through intervention, to survive, we must maintain a respectful balance between terminations and live births.
Statistics from the World Health Organisation show that in England in 1995 the survival rate of very premature babies was 40% and in 2006 it was 53%. The survival rate increases by 9% for each week after 24 weeks. However, knowing these statistics will not diminish the anxiety caused to the mother whose baby has been predicted to be premature.
The issue of terminations on the basis of the predicted sex is a product of the advance of medical science. When I was pregnant, ultrasound scans were not routine. This meant that the baby’s sex was a wonderful surprise at birth. Nowadays, scans are routine and offered at 12 and 20 weeks. It is now possible to see what the sex might be. Some parents do not wish to be told, but others are told.
Perhaps a more ethical way would be not routinely to offer knowledge of the sex of the child except where medical reasons, certainly not social reasons, might require it. For some parents with a family of all girls or all boys, the temptation to know and perhaps terminate could be overwhelming. We should not put such temptation in their way.
As a society, we must maintain a strong balance where the survival of premature births is always ahead of the length of gestation at which termination can take place.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, as a Sikh, I am totally opposed to abortion on any grounds except that of real and serious danger to the mother’s health, and it is important that those who facilitate gender-selective abortions should be punished with the full rigour of the law. However, laws cannot create good behaviour; they can only define the boundaries of unacceptable behaviour. We must also look to education in tackling negative and outmoded cultural practices.
The Sikh religion is not a religion in which “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not” are strictly imposed; Sikh teachings are couched in terms of gentle guidance about what we should or should not do to lead a responsible life. One of the few exceptions is a total condemnation of female infanticide. Sadly, this was all too common in the India of 500 years ago and was linked to the inferior status of women throughout the world.
From the very start of the religion, Guru Nanak taught the dignity and complete equality of women. Sikh women have always been able to lead prayers and occupy any religious position. The 10th guru, Guru Gobind Singh, gave women the name or title Kaur—literally, “princess”—to emphasise their dignity and complete equality. A Sikh woman does not have to take her husband’s name but remains an individual in her own right.
Despite the clarity of such teachings, negative sub-continent culture for some, even in the Sikh community, leads to discrimination against women and girls. Perversely, it is women who are often responsible, with mothers lavishing extra attention on male children. Even in the West today, a new birth is frequently accompanied by a joyous cry, “It’s a boy!”. It is not so long ago that the birth of a girl to royalty was greeted as a national calamity, on a par with the loss of a test match.
We all have to work much harder to fight gender discrimination and gender prejudice through tighter laws and education.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, I, too, welcome the debate secured by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. Whatever our personal position on abortion, I hope that we all want it to be carried out within the law. All providers of abortion services are tightly regulated and monitored by the Care Quality Commission, which makes unannounced inspections of all providers at least once a year. If doctors are carrying out abortion for any reason outside the law, they should be prosecuted. There is no question about that. Sometimes there may be a sound medical reason for an abortion to be carried out which, to a non-medical person, may appear to be outside the law. These cases, which are rare, should also be properly investigated. New guidelines are being drawn up by the Department of Health and they should clarify these cases, especially making it clear that abortion on grounds of sex alone is not legal.
I support the call by my noble friend Lady Barker for only one doctor to be involved. I do so because it seems to me that it would make the responsibility his or hers alone. There would be no buck-passing and it would make the law far easier to interpret, as well as making it better for the health service and for the patient.
However, attempts to criminalise doctors and prevent access to abortion services, which have recently been escalating in this country, must stop. The Abortion Act is there to prevent malpractice. Personally—I have to say this—I still think that a woman’s right to choose what she does in this situation should be sacrosanct. Whatever our personal point of view, like Queen Elizabeth I, we should not seek to look into other people’s souls or to impose our ethical stance or religion on others.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, allowing sex-selective abortion would mean that the UK was sleep-walking into a full-blown eugenic society, flying full into the face of humanity and the gift of life. Gender-selective abortion, which is highly discriminatory against females, is not prohibited by any Act or any other legislative instrument nor, for that matter, would be abortion by selection on grounds of likely height, appearance or whatever, which forms of cosmetic abortion could follow.
Neither ministerial exhortation, codes of practice nor medical professional self-regulation will stop this. Only the Government can. Therefore, there is a very urgent need for secondary legislation to do the job—to make clear the illegality of all these practices—as the issue will surely blow up in the Government’s discomfort zone if it is not punctured soon, as the Prime Minister has pointed out and sensed, I believe.
Exactly the same goes for foetal pain at 20 weeks-plus, in relation both to the provisions of the Abortion Act and current legislation against the wilful infliction of pain contained in Section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which enacts the UK’s commitment under the UN Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. By sheer coincidence, I happen to have taken that Bill through all its stages in another place. Will my noble friend the Minister act on these two issues?
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, I have looked forward to this opportunity to say some things that are very dear to my heart. First, millions of girl babies have been aborted in North India, and the difference between the numbers of girls and boys in two states, Punjab and Haryana, is ridiculous. In Punjab it is 10% and in Haryana it is 11%. Bearing that in mind, it leads us to the conclusion that this must never, ever be allowed in this country. Secondly, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Singh, says, Punjab is the homeland of the Sikhs. He once said to me, “What a pity the Sikhs don’t know how good their religion is”. It is a wonderful religion, but they do not follow it. There is a lot of discrimination, which is not unusual, as we know. In Gujarat, not so long ago—this is current, I am not talking about 500 years ago—they used to drown girl babies in buckets of milk saying that they were drinking the milk. There have been such terrible things happening in countries to get rid of girl babies.
I wrote to Jeremy Hunt, and I received a reply from Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, from which I quote two parts. The first is that, “The CPS concluded that the two cases did not provide a clear basis of finding for a gender-based abortion” and secondly, this part is in bold, “The law is clear that termination of pregnancy on grounds of gender alone is illegal and this decision does not alter that”. We can take comfort from that. We have had a bit of debate that should not have happened today about whether there should be abortion at all, or at what stage there should be abortion. I think that it is a woman’s right to have family planning and, if she does not want a baby, not to have it. It is a human right; women have very few human rights and this is an important one.
Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)
My Lords, as we are so close to the end of the debate I will not try to repeat the excellent arguments that have been made, not least by my noble friend Lady Knight in her excellent introduction. It might be well to reflect for a minute on abortion itself and the experience of abortion. I have never forgotten one young woman of 18 years of age, whose boyfriend had insisted that she have an abortion because he wanted no part of a baby, telling me what it was like. I had tears in my eyes, as she had in hers, as she told me how the whole night before her abortion she had tried to talk to her unborn baby and explain to it why it was necessary that it should die and how awful she felt when the morning came and she had to say goodbye to the baby that she would never meet. That is the reality of the personal experience of abortion.
What struck me most, looking at the excellent statistical analysis that was given to us by the Library, was that more than a third of women who appear for an abortion are on their second, third or even more. Why is it that they are not given—at the first experience of abortion at least, if not earlier in their lives—better instruction about how to prevent a pregnancy in the first place? We have failed disastrously when there are so many ways of a woman exercising birth control. When we have a morning-after pill, why is it that so many women find themselves with unwanted pregnancies? This is perhaps a failure of what is done in school but it is also—it seems to me—crucially a failure of what happens when a young woman presents herself for the first time for an abortion. She should at least be given good instruction about how to prevent it happening again. In the wider discussion of the appalling custom of aborting little girls, we should think more on the general issue of abortion itself.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, since the 1967 Abortion Act came into force on 27 April 1968, there have been more than 7 million abortions—around 600 every working day. I have some questions for the noble Earl.
As the law does not permit abortion on demand, and abortion was supposed to be a rarity, how in particular does the Minister explain the 66,000 repeat abortions last year—37% of the total—and the fact that, in some cases, individuals have had as many as nine repeat abortions? How does he explain that the majority of abortions are approved by doctors who have never even met their patients? Does he believe that Parliament and the law intended babies to be aborted after up to 40 weeks’ gestation on grounds such as having a cleft palate—breaking our laws on equality and discrimination? Does the noble Earl believe that Parliament wanted an estimated 4,700 girls to be aborted as just another choice, adding to the 160 million girls aborted worldwide?
Non-binding guidance is clearly not enough. Will he therefore amend the HSA1 and HSA4 forms to ensure that the two doctors required by law to authorise abortions only do so having directly asked whether the abortion is on the grounds of gender? On page 8 of its leaflet, Britain’s Abortion Law: What it Says, and Why, BPAS, which undertook 54,478 abortions last year with public money, asked:
“Is abortion for reasons of fetal sex illegal … ?”.
It then provides the answer, “No”. Why has the Minister not required BPAS to remove that advice? In a world in which we have such a low view of the intrinsic value of every life, what is being done to bring to book, using the Human Tissue Act, those National Health Service trusts that have been burning the human remains of aborted and miscarried babies to heat National Health Service hospitals?
These brief questions illustrate why the legislation needs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has told us today, careful review and amendment. Can the Minister think of a single comparable piece of legislation which has had such far-reaching consequences but has never been subject to post-legislative parliamentary scrutiny? Why does he think that is and will he ask the Secretary of State to consider allowing it?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, we have half an hour left of this debate, and I wonder whether I could speak very briefly in the gap and ask a question.
Lord Popat
It happens that way in the Chamber, where we give four minutes, but not in the Grand Committee Room.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews) (Lab)
I think we can allow the noble Lord to speak very briefly.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I want to ask this very simple question. It has been drawn to our attention by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, that pre-signed forms have been found. Is it a breach of the law to sign those forms and, if it is, should prosecutions be brought in such circumstances?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important debate. I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, about the Assisted Dying Bill, but I do not accept the link she has made between that Bill and the 1967 Abortion Act. I speak as someone who has always supported that Act, but I find termination on the grounds of gender to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope the noble Earl can clear up the issue of the interpretation of the 1967 Act. Can he say whether he agrees with the interpretation given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern? As I understand it, the essence of what he said is that the 1967 Act permits abortions only under the specific circumstances as set out in that Act. Therefore, it does not allow for an abortion to be performed on the basis of not wanting a child of a specific gender. It would be very helpful if the noble Earl could really clarify that point.
I also want to ask about the decision of the independent prosecutors in the case mentioned by the noble Baroness. I well understand that the Attorney-General does not want to second-guess the decisions of the independent prosecutors and I have read the subsequent explanation of the Director of Public Prosecutions, but would like the noble Earl to clarify whether he thinks, in the light of that, that any further clarification is required. We have heard about the pre-signing of HSA1 forms. Can the noble Earl confirm that, following the investigation by the Care Quality Commission, those organisations that were found to be pre-signing those forms were ordered to stop this practice? Is he confident that providers are now complying with the Abortion Act?
Finally, does he agree that we need to challenge discriminatory attitudes towards women and girls and should not be frightened of that challenge? Will the Minister say what efforts the Government will make on education in this area and specifically among some communities in this country?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, it is right for me to begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Knight for her powerful contribution to this important and emotive subject. I express my appreciation to all speakers in this debate. A large number of points have been made and questions have been asked, so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not manage to answer all of them. I undertake to do so, in so far as I do not cover the points in my speech, in a subsequent letter.
The Abortion Act 1967 sets out the terms under which abortion is legal. Since it was passed in 1967, there has been a long-standing tradition that any legislation on this issue is put forward from the Back Benches and is subject to a free vote. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others whether the law needs clarifying in the light of events and the statement from the Crown Prosecution Service, which my noble friends Lady Barker and Lady Tonge asked about, making changes to the law. Clarification of the law remains a matter for Parliament, not for government. I say to my noble friend Lord Patten that there is no scope for secondary legislation to amend the grounds on which abortion takes place. It would be a matter for primary legislation.
It is vital for everyone, regardless of their views on abortion, to be assured that the law on abortion is operating as Parliament intended. This is particularly important for clinicians directly involved in certifying and performing abortions who need to know that they are operating within the law and for women seeking an abortion who need access to safe, legal, high-quality abortion services.
The Chief Medical Officer has written twice to all doctors involved in abortion provision to remind them of the need to make sure that they work within the law at all times. It is also important for doctors to be able to explain and evidence their decisions and to record how they have formed an opinion on whether grounds for abortion are met. A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Knight, raised the issue of doctors forming an opinion on grounds for abortion without seeing or examining the woman. Since the Abortion Act 1967 was passed, the law has required that two doctors certify in good faith that there are lawful grounds for any abortion, and that must be based on understanding the facts of a woman’s case whether or not they personally see or examine the woman.
My noble friend Lord Gordon asked whether we can provide figures for the number of abortions performed without a doctor seeing or examining the woman. I am advised that we do not have figures for that. The 46% figure quoted was wrong, I am sorry to say, and was withdrawn by the department. It is not possible to quantify the figure, but I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that forms being pre-signed is a clear breach of the law and if it is found to be happening, a prosecution should be brought.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, that the Care Quality Commission will continue to cover this issue as part of its inspections and compliance action will be taken against any provider where there is evidence of pre-signing. The CQC has put in place information for its staff to help identify if pre-signing or other instances of non-compliance are taking place to make sure that they would be picked up during inspections.
My noble friend Lady Knight and a number of other speakers expressed concerns about gender-selective abortions, particularly the abortion of foetuses simply because they are female. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has referred to this practice as “appalling”. The Government’s view has been clearly stated on many occasions—that abortion on grounds of gender alone is illegal. My noble friend Lady Knight stated that the Act is not clear on this point. I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that the grounds for abortion are set out in the Abortion Act 1967. It is true that these grounds make no reference to gender. While there is an extremely limited number of circumstances in which gender may be a factor in considering other grounds—for example, a gender-related abnormality—the department has made a number of recent public statements through the CMO letters, Answers to Parliamentary Questions and media lines, stating our view that abortion on grounds of gender alone is illegal, and we firmly stick by that view.
Analysis conducted by the Department of Health indicates that birth ratios—that is to say, the ratio of boys born as compared with girls—in this country are within normal limits. This is true for the population overall, and is also true for births to women born abroad who now live in this country. This analysis was first conducted and published in May 2013. This is being updated and we intend to continue to conduct a similar analysis on an annual basis, because we regard this issue as extremely important. We are determined to monitor the situation regularly and remain vigilant. I am also aware that some individuals and organisations have offered anecdotal evidence of gender-selective abortions taking place. I urge anyone who thinks that the law may be being broken to contact the police with their evidence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Singh, may be interested to know that Department of Health officials recently met representatives from Gina International. The meeting was very useful and Gina International has been signposted to relevant organisations, including abortion providers, with which it can discuss its concerns. The meeting concluded that both sides share the same aims—namely, to spread the message that abortions on the grounds of gender alone are illegal.
The Daily Telegraph first brought this issue to light during its investigation in February 2012. I am aware that the announcement in September 2013 that the Crown Prosecution Service declined to prosecute two of the doctors involved in this issue has been disappointing for some. In explaining why it felt that prosecution was not in the public interest, the Crown Prosecution Service noted that it could be difficult to determine whether doctors had worked within the Act in forming an opinion in good faith. It felt that further guidance to doctors on this issue would be helpful for doctors themselves, as well as for any authority who may need to investigate an allegation of poor practice or lawbreaking. The department therefore intends to issue further guidance for doctors, which will set out the Government’s interpretation of the law on gender-selective abortions, as well as further information about reaching and recording an opinion formed in good faith. We intend to issue this guidance shortly.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that we believe that the department’s analysis, which is based on birth registrations, is more accurate than the Independent’s analysis, which was based on household composition. The department’s analysis showed that birth ratios were within normal limits.
All abortion providers must be registered with the Care Quality Commission, and independent sector providers must also be approved by the Secretary of State for Health. In order to be approved, independent sector providers must adhere to the required standard operating procedures. There has been considerable concern that the consultation that the department has recently completed on updating these procedures has somehow changed the legal position on abortion. As I have highlighted, the legal requirements on abortion are set out in the 1967 Act. Nothing has changed. A response to the consultation will be published once all the responses have been analysed.
Lord Patten
My noble friend, for whom I am full of admiration in every way, has said that the law forbids abortion on grounds of sex selection, and forbids pre-signing. However, there has never been a successful prosecution or, indeed, a prosecution of any sort. It seems to me that nothing at all is actually being done.
Earl Howe
I shall copy all letters to all Peers who have spoken in the debate. My time is now running out but I know that concerns have been expressed, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the way that foetal remains are sometimes disposed of. A recent investigation by the Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme examined this issue. The type of situations highlighted in the programme, where foetal remains were incinerated rather than buried or cremated in line with what the woman would have wanted, are totally unacceptable. Any such practices should cease immediately. A letter has gone to all trusts to make that point emphatically clear.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell asked about hospitals revealing the sex of the foetus at routine ultrasound scans. Disclosing the sex of a foetus is a local decision and should be based on clinical judgment about the certainty of the assessment and the individual circumstances of each case. It is not something that the Government can mandate from the centre.
My noble friend Lady Knight asked about the NHS not employing midwives who would not be willing to perform abortions. The Act allows professionals, including midwives, to opt out of participation in any treatment to which he or she has a conscientious objection. That conscientious objection should not be detrimental to the careers of health professionals. I think I am over my time.
Earl Howe
Sorry, I will carry on. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made some powerful points about repeat abortions. We are working to reduce repeat abortions through promoting access to the most effective methods of contraception following abortion. Care pathways should be in place to contraceptive services following any abortion.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about recording the sex of a foetus on the HSA4 form. We have no plans to record the sex of the foetus on the form. It is not usually possible to identify the sex of a baby until the second ultrasound scan, which takes place at around 18 to 21 weeks’ gestation. In 2012, nearly 98% of abortions were performed before 18 weeks’ gestation, so the gender of the foetus is not known for most abortions. I strongly agree with him that a challenge to attitudes and discrimination against women is a good thing. That is what our parliamentary system is based on. I will write to him further on that, as I will on the question of education.
I close by emphasising again that we are not complacent on these issues. We remain and will continue to be very vigilant.
Lord Popat
My Lords, I suggest we take a break for five minutes in view of the fact that we do not have all the speakers for the next debate.
EU: Money-laundering Directive
(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Willoughby de Broke
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they support the inclusion of private trusts in the draft provisions of the Fourth Money Laundering Directive.
Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to draw this matter to the attention of the Committee. I must start by declaring an interest. My farm, on which I scratch a living, is run under a parliamentary trust with trustees who are properly named and all the accounts are in order, as far as I know.
Having got that out of the way, I should say that this debate is about the amendment which the European Parliament recently passed in plenary session to support the amendments to the fourth money-laundering directive inserted by the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee. This recent amendment means that companies and, crucially, trusts will have to be listed in public registers in EU countries. This amendment goes well beyond the scope of the original draft directive published by the European Commission last year. That required privately owned companies and trustees of express trusts to maintain records of the identities of their beneficial owners. However, at that stage, the directive required the information to be made available to competent authorities and obliged entities only—that is, law enforcement bodies and persons conducting due diligence. The original draft did not envisage public registers and did not even mention trusts.
The important point to underline is that under the third money-laundering directive, which was implemented in UK law by the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, there is already a legal requirement to identify the beneficial owners of trusts, companies and foundations and their trustees. Indeed, HMRC already requires that any person concerned with the making of a settlement must make a return under declaration S218 stating the names and addresses of the settlor and the trustees of the settlement. The tax authorities already have all the tools they need to ensure compliance with those money-laundering regulations.
Individuals at law firms to whom I have spoken in preparing for this debate have repeatedly made the same point. The existing “know your client” rules—noble Lords will be familiar with the tedious requirement to produce your passport and utility bills when you do business with a company with which you have done business for 30 or 40 years—already make that point. All intermediaries, whether financial or solicitors, already have a legal duty to report to the authorities anyone attempting to use a trust for illegal purposes or they face a fine and even imprisonment. Those rules have been deemed completely adequate by successive British Governments who have never attempted to introduce this sort of intrusive law which is being put forward by the European Parliament.
Why are we now faced with this wholly unnecessary and intrusive directive? It is principally, I think, because of the ignorance and misconception about trusts in the rest of the member states of the EU whose legal systems are based on civil law, not common law. That encompasses 26 of the 28 members of the EU. Civil law countries do not have trusts in their legal systems, so they do not understand the centrality of trusts in English law. Oddly enough, it was a French legalist, Monsieur Pierre Lepaulle who, talking of trusts, wrote:
“The trust is the guardian angel of the Anglo-Saxon, who accompanies him everywhere, impassively, from the cradle to the grave”.
In the EU, there is a complete misconception of the use of trusts, evidenced by the very strong support in the European Parliament for this amendment. Trusts are seen as vehicles for tax fraud—corporate or individual—and as the preserve of the rich, thus a higher risk to Governments in terms of tax evasion.
The truth could not be more different. Trusts in England and Wales are mostly used in mundane and practical situations. Let me give some examples: the co-ownership of land, the administration of deceased estates, the protection of children during minority, the protection of vulnerable and handicapped people, retirement pension schemes and employee share-ownership schemes. Most UK charities are structures as trusts. According to the Law Society, there are well over 1.5 million trusts in Britain, so the requirement of this amendment for a national public register of trusts, their beneficiaries and trustees will have far-reaching and potentially damaging consequences.
The Englishman’s home has traditionally been his castle. This will no longer be true. This proposal will threaten individuals’ and families’ basic rights to confidentiality in their private affairs. Publicly accessible registers of private individual’s affairs can well present risks for those who are named in them, for example by being targeted by financial criminals. On that, I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the “Panorama” programme on 28 February, called “Kidnapped, Betrayed by Britain”, in which the journalists on the programme investigated the disappearance in Dubai of a British businessman. According to that investigation the British authorities handed over thousands of pages of confidential documents to the Iranian authorities without informing the British businessman involved and ignoring the warnings that their actions posed a risk to his safety. He was kidnapped, disappeared and is presumed dead. Now, that is probably a little extreme but it shows that there are risks in making these registers public to anyone at all. The Latvian rapporteur who introduced this amendment said after the vote in the European Parliament that it was,
“a good day for law-abiding citizens, but a bad day for criminals”.
No, it was a bad day for individual freedom and a good day for Governments with their insatiable appetite for intruding into the private affairs of their citizens.
I understand that the Government oppose this amendment. Indeed, the Prime Minister wrote a letter on 13 November last year to—wait for it—his Excellency Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council, informing him that:
“It is clearly important we recognise the important differences between companies and trusts”.
He went on to say:
“I look forward to looking properly at the arguments around trusts and other legal arrangements”.
Judging from the vote in the European Parliament, that letter had about as much success as John Major’s letter to Jacques Santer’s Commission in 2000 on the working time directive. Both letters were instantly consigned to the waste paper basket. So much for our strong voice in Europe—more a muffled squeak—and our seat at the top table.
Could the Minister tell the House how the Government will deal with this matter when it comes to the Council of Ministers in May? Is he able to give some hope to the millions of people who will be affected by this measure, who use trusts routinely and legally, that their private affairs will not be open to any inquisitive individual at the click of a mouse? This amendment is unnecessary and intrusive. It should be consigned to the same WPB as our Prime Minister’s letters.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, I am tempted to think that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is a little overanxious about this matter. That will perhaps come out later on in this debate. However, he made some points that I am tempted to agree with on the background to this. It is a very complex and vast area, and it has dragged on for quite some time.
The latest manifestation is the massive vote in the European Parliament in favour of really significant action in this regard. All member Governments are obliged to respond, and there will be meetings in May and subsequently. Eventually, I presume, the new directive will come from the Commission. That will take time to unfold. Most countries already have some clusters of cultures in these matters of declaration, tax information and all the rest of it. However, once again there is obviously a difference between the UK and Ireland and the others in these general matters relating to trusts. The trust is a particularly Anglo-Saxon vehicle, so one has to bear those things in mind when trying to formulate coherent legislation.
The will of the European Parliament cannot just be laid aside, as it were. The vote was very emphatic. It was not only the numbers but also what was said in both the committees and the debate in plenary, with great emphasis that there was now a need to take action in this field and to establish coherence and equivalence between what the EU does as a collective, the worldwide anti money-laundering legislation of one kind or another and the international move to try to get everybody dealing with these matters in a similar way. It is a vast world problem. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, spoke quite rightly of the very honourable trusts that there are, particularly for young people, and all the rest of that paraphernalia we have of legal protection and that background. None the less, the worldwide money-laundering offence is vast, as we know. Member Governments of the EU, as well as authorities elsewhere and the world institutions, are trying to deal with these matters and work together. It is understandable that new legislation is needed.
The United Kingdom already has strong legislation on this. To my mind, it would be very reasonable and essential for HMG to say that the directive provides the broad outline of background permissibility of the legislation, and then each country will introduce its own Bill, becoming an Act after that, in its own way. I live in France as well, so I declare that interest. The law there is extremely different, but none the less aims for the same things. The French have a deep suspicion of this offshore money that is laundered by criminals, terrorists and gangsters of one kind and another in highly organised large international movements of people, moving large amounts of money. That has to be taken care of and followed up vigorously and with energy.
I believe that trusts must be included. However, the Government, in one of the recent ministerial letters on the subject, said with some justification, rather along the lines of the Prime Minister’s letter, that the Government do not believe that trust registries would necessarily be an effective option in addressing the risk associated with trusts. So I think there is a case, to some extent. Not being an expert I have to put in phrases such as that to limit my own operational ignorance of the details of these matters, although I was a City person for many years and saw the nasty side of some of these things from a distance from time to time.
That is an important question and perhaps the Minister will be able to help us in this debate by saying how the Government would deal with the specific question of trust registries—in the sense already implicit in the draft legislative proposal from the European Parliament, with its massive vote backing it up, as we know, that one should provide in public the minimum amount of detail to give satisfaction in the sense of revealing that it is not laundered illegal money, if that can be done.
Equally, to leave out trusts would be wrong, because obviously lots of villains would immediately switch from companies to trusts. You have only to go to some of the many tax havens that our own empire, rather more than others, unfortunately left as a legacy—rather more than France, which quite rightly takes a very dim view of tax-exile territories. That is where these things occur. The banks themselves have worked on an international comparison and co-operative effort, which is gaining strength all the time, and now includes Switzerland, Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, to try to deal with illegal, laundered money. This is gangster and terrorist money and illicit illegal money of other similar kinds. That background is helpful, too, and I wish the Government well in eventually dealing with this matter in terms of domestic legislation.
Will the Minister help us with one or two points that arise from this legislation? On the question of trusts, it says:
“If the beneficial ownership information of companies but not trusts is made public, the latter will become—
as I suggested earlier—
“the default alternative means to undertake the same criminal activities which the new company rules seek to prevent”.
Is a specific mechanism possible to deal with that particularly immediate problem?
I agree very much with the MEP Judith Sargentini when she says that:
“If we had decided to leave trusts out of the scope of the new legislation, then it would immediately have made them the perfect vehicle for criminals wishing to avoid taxation and launder their illegal money through the financial system”.
When considering the eventual directive that will come out of this legislative proposal, which will take some time, it is necessary to deal with that important problem.
I am also concerned about the phenomenology of the risk assessment procedure and I would be grateful if the Minister could help us there, too. The Explanatory Notes state that the risk assessment should cover at least the following aspects: the overall extent of money laundering and the areas of the internal market that are at greater risk; the most widespread means used by criminals to launder in illicit proceeds; as well as the recommendation to the competent authorities on the effective deployment of resources. The evaluation, by the way, should be done every six months. That may be quite difficult to keep to, although I do not wish to sound complacent about this desperate international problem—we will see.
The document further asserts that, to keep everything in proportion and targeted, member states could adopt, or retain in force, stricter provisions in the field covered by this directive to prevent money laundering and terrorism financing, provided that such provisions are in full compliance with Union law. There will, of course, be variations in the national legislation of each member state.
I exclude the two Irelands from my next comment because they, again, would need different treatment, and there is a historical British taxation background in both those countries. However, the culture of the member states that came in in 2004 will be somewhat different in many cases from that of member states which joined the Union prior to 2004.
Finally, I quote again from the Government’s response contained in the excellent House of Lords Library briefing pack, for which I thank the Library staff. It states that,
“while the Government remains broadly supportive of the Commission’s proposals, there are a limited number”—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews) (Lab)
I am so sorry to interrupt, but there is a Division in the Chamber. We will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Lord Dykes
I was just about to finish by asking the Government three quick questions. In the Minister’s letter of 13 December 2013, which I was referring to, the Government broadly supported the Commission’s proposals but a limited number gave cause for concern. I am deliberately not including the gambling points; I am leaving those out because I think that they are empirically rational and sensible. First, what does the Minister estimate will happen when the ECOFIN meeting takes place? What will be agreed? Presumably it will need far longer than that to agree the total package.
Secondly, would the Commission’s proposal discontinue third-country equivalence listing as established under the third money-laundering directive? That needs further explanation.
Finally, the Commission intends—this is in the Explanatory Memorandum of the European Parliament’s legislative proposal—to complement the current proposal by strengthening the EU’s repressive response to money-laundering. Consequently, there is a plan to propose criminal law harmonisation for this offence based on Article 83(1) of the TFEU. That also needs more explanation because there are arguments for and against that concept.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting debate and we should thank the noble Lord for introducing it. It concerns a series of issues that are still very much in the air because, as I understand it, the European Parliament has approved the directive but has made amendments to it. One of those amendments is of particular concern; namely, that the right of access to the information has been widened from “competent authorities” such as Governments and “obliged entities” such as banks, lawyers and so on to the general public. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is particularly concerned about it. I wanted to make that clear because there is a long way to go. Negotiations will be held between the Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers, and then it will come here. Being a hoary old lawyer, I am cautious about being at all definitive until I see the final wording and have the opportunity to discover precisely what the disclosure requirements will mean.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has somewhat exaggerated the potential breach of privacy. Charities, for example, are themselves public bodies. They comprise the biggest body of trusts in the country and, since they are essentially public bodies, there is no earthly reason why any aspect of their affairs should not be made public. However, I do accept the position with regard to family trusts. Here I should say that I spent several years during the late 1960s and early 1970s dealing with a great deal of family and business work that involved a considerable amount of trust work, particularly with what are called discretionary trusts. I am well aware of the background to those sorts of trusts and why they have a particular relevance, as has been explained to us.
However, I must also be plain. I am deeply concerned about the continuing decline in public trust which I am afraid is afflicting virtually every aspect of our establishment. Perhaps, mercifully, only the judiciary is free of public suspicion and mistrust. One institution after another has lost credibility. I need not go through all the institutions in our country, but it is necessary for us to remember that we ourselves have contributed to the decline in public trust through the events of a few years back, which the public have certainly not forgotten. That want of public confidence, if you like, is now being played on. I do not say this with any disparagement, but UKIP is definitely plugging into that sentiment, just as I believe Alex Salmond and his Scottish colleagues are doing north of the border.
I understand perfectly why there is disaffection and disconnection between the body politic and the ordinary citizen. However, one crucial, central element of that is corruption—using that word in its broadest sense—by big business, particularly among the banks, which frankly has been stupendous, and in the other areas I have touched upon. I want to see a radical attack on corruption, and anything that weakens the ability of the prosecutorial authorities to deal with this corruption must be remedied by us here in Parliament.
I am not as big a fool as to believe that passing laws is a substitute for achievement on the ground; indeed, in this area, I am afraid, the gulf between legislation and implementation is tragically wide, which is something that this House really has to concentrate on in the coming months and years, because what is going on is a farce. Look at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: it had 96,000 staff in 2005 but by next year that will be down to 56,000. Even if you are inclined to believe that there is a great deal of inefficiency et cetera, that is way beyond anything that is at all compatible with the need of the country to see tax avoidance in particular, and fraud in general, dealt with.
Just before he retired, I had lunch with Richard Alderman, the former head of the Serious Fraud Office. He was almost crying into his soup, telling me that he had met one of his former senior staff the month before to find this gentleman bewailing the fact that he had left the SFO and rather wishing he was back rather than being employed by a firm of American lawyers in London at 500% of his salary. At the Serious Fraud Office, as at HMRC, the senior cadres of people are so far outgunned by their opposites in big business, particularly the banks, that it is not just David and Goliath, it is David without his sling against Goliath. It is not a joke. It is a scandal and we should be ashamed of it.
I want ultimately to see the fine print but at this moment I am definitely in favour of strict disincentives for fraudulent activities—money-laundering or anything else you can name—utilising the trust mechanism. I am too experienced a lawyer and know just how convenient the trust is in nefarious activities, precisely because it is informal, fluid and has little statutory law bureaucracy around it.
We all know that the extent of tax evasion has dispirited this country. In the excellent report put out by our colleagues in the Select Committee on Economic Affairs in July last year, Tackling Corporate Tax Avoidance in a Global Economy, the public were able to read about Amazon, Starbucks, Thames Water, Vodafone, Cadbury before being taken over by Kraft—would not its Quaker forefathers just fall out of bed?—and, of course, Google. Citing just the example of Google, the report tells us that in the years between 2006 and 2011 in the United Kingdom, it generated £80 billion of business and paid—can your Lordships believe it?—£16 million tax. It is conceivable that that was done legally but the truth is that most tax avoidance is fraudulent when done on a major scale.
What are we doing vis-à-vis foreign so-called investors? The crooks from across the world come to this country, but why do they come? It is on record, if noble Lords doubt it. Look at the Migration Advisory Committee report from February this year. The principal reason that the big crooks bring their black money to London is because it is safe here.
Noble Lords should consider, too, the rights that anybody who invests £1 million in government bonds for five years and spends 180 days a year in this country acquires. He or she, and their families, have indefinite leave to remain in this country, while knowing that they will not pay tax on their rotten money, because they make damn sure that they do not. They will not use lawful means, most of the time. The sort of people we are talking about are driving up central London property prices so that decent, ordinary Londoners cannot get near staying in London and have to get out of the city in order to live. That is all part of a world that we have to deal with, and part of dealing with that world is to attack trusts.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I set up a family trust in 1984. It is on the point of expiry, so it is not much of an interest.
I intervene briefly to press the Minister for detail on a question put by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke. In view of the letter from the Prime Minister that my noble friend quoted, can the noble Lord confirm that the Government remain unhappy with this latest intrusion by the EU into our national life? If that is so, will the Government advance the doctrine of subsidiarity? Does the noble Lord not agree that this sort of thing should be left to our national Parliament and that this would be rather a good opportunity to test that doctrine, useless though it has always proved in the past?
Failing that, what chance do the Government think they have of avoiding this directive? Could the noble Lord tell us, just for the record, whether the eventual decision will be taken by majority voting or whether the Government can, in fact, block it? I look forward to the noble Lord’s answers.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I apologise for not having put my name down, but I was not sure I could be here this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, alluded to the maxim of an Englishman’s home being his castle. Perhaps it is because I am not an Englishman that I do not completely subscribe to his views, but I do subscribe to the maxim that there is quite a lot to be said for having nothing to hide and therefore nothing to fear. I am concerned that he made virtually no mention in his remarks of the issue of money-laundering, and I thoroughly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that it is actually a very important issue. Whether or not it is more important than trusts, I will leave for others to decide, but it is very important that we grasp this issue. I spoke at some length on this during the passage of the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill last year, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
I see that the Government have committed to creating a public register of the beneficial ownership of companies. That is a step forward, but if beneficial ownership does not include trusts then, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, that opens up such an obvious route for criminals to avoid taxation and launder their illegal money in various ways through the financial system. That is surely something we must seek to avoid if at all possible. I note that the directive has strong support from the bigger EU member countries. I know that will not cut much ice with the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Pearson, but it is none the less important, and I see that the resolution was passed very decisively when it came up for consideration.
I accept that a majority of trusts are set up for entirely legitimate purposes, but the small percentage which abuse the law can have, and often have had, devastating impacts. The opaque corporate ownership structures which are often used allow such crimes as money-laundering, tax evasion, sanctions busting, trafficking of arms, drugs or humans, terrorist financing, bribery and other forms of corruption. Those are surely not issues that we can treat at all lightly. If transparency around trusts is not guaranteed, their illegitimate use is likely to increase significantly, which is a big issue. A public register could distinguish between low and high-risk trusts, with the former being exempt, to avoid unnecessary regulation. Will the Minister give us his view on that point when he replies? I very much hope the Government will eventually support this directive.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on introducing this debate. The degree of sharp interest shown by all noble Lords in this issue may have surprised him. Passion has been aroused, and so it should be. It is interesting that it has been identified that the evils that the Government should address are tax avoidance and money laundering. We were also greatly concerned about money flowing towards terrorist activities. That agenda has come very much to the fore over the past decade. If we are not concerned about those issues and whether our law is adequate to control them as best as it can, we are clearly not playing our full role in the public interest.
I congratulate the Government on the work done last year. It is quite clear that they are already committed to creating a public register of the beneficial ownership of companies and therefore a substantial part of the issue is being tackled. I am quite sure that all parties subscribe to that position, with the notable exception of the party that is exceedingly well represented in this Room but is not normally well represented in Parliament by elected Members. Although this issue is complex, the Government have made some considerable strides, and it is clear that we have a slightly more difficult issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, identified, because of our common law than is the case with countries on the continent. We will wrestle with these issues.
Trusts fit into a very distinctive and different pattern compared with organisations elsewhere, but the point is obvious. If trusts are not included in the legislation, they will become the default mechanism whereby all miscreants will carry on their practices. We know that they go on to a significant extent and that the wider public out there expects Parliament to tackle these issues once they have been revealed. It is therefore of the greatest significance that we keep the momentum up. I understand entirely the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, but they are overwhelmed by the need of our society for protection against proven misdemeanours in the use of companies and trusts.
I should emphasise that this is not a new issue. Some people will defend freedom to the nth degree and say that you should not intrude upon private arrangements. Between $8 million and $10 million was secreted away in trusts by an individual, General Pinochet. I doubt whether many people in our country think that he was entitled to the privacy vouchsafed to him at that time; nor should we underestimate the dangers that are implicit in defective and ineffective law. That is why we have to tackle these difficult issues, and I am glad that noble Lords today have pressed the Minister with clear questions about the difficulties that have to be overcome.
It is clearly the case that people enter trusts, particularly family trusts, on the basis of an understanding of privacy. It may therefore be necessary for the Government to tackle trusts in more than one category: those that are capable of being used for nefarious purposes and those that clearly come into the common category of a very large number of people who are merely seeking to safeguard relationships in their family and their resources. However, there is no alternative. We particularly need international action because, whatever we do, if it is not carried out by other advanced economies, all our efforts will be insignificant. Automatic exchange agreements, which would leave the miscreants concentrating on the weakest link in the chain, the country that they identify as being least able to enforce such agreements and implement them, would be used. Financial tax laws are all voluntary. We have nothing that is compulsory, which is what this directive and the amendments are directed at.
I recognise that this is a complex issue and that the Minister is bound to indicate that there are areas in which it is more straightforward to act than in others, but we should bear in mind the strength of the majority opinion in this debate, which has been very forcibly expressed, that we cannot have a situation where the significant holders of real wealth are able to avoid their obligations to the wider public and to the consumers and nations that they serve. It is important that we have legislation that carries out the action that we all regard as essential.
Lord Willoughby de Broke
My Lords, some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord Davies, have missed the point that I was trying to make. There are already, under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, absolute requirements on financial intermediaries and lawyers to report to the relevant authorities if they suspect that there is any illegal use of trusts. They already have the weapons; the idea that there is absolutely no legislation to deal with trusts is entirely misplaced.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for introducing this debate and all noble Lords for their contributions. I will try to answer some of the broad concerns expressed and lay out the steps that the Government are taking to ensure the effective and proportionate treatment of trusts under the fourth money-laundering directive.
Proposals for the directive are aimed at improving the transparency over who owns and controls companies and legal arrangements, such as trusts. The World Bank estimates that between 2% and 5% of global GDP is subject to money laundering, with some estimates showing that global illicit outflows from developing countries dwarf the amount that they receive in official development assistance. Furthermore, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that less than 1% of that is currently being seized or frozen. Tackling these illicit flows was therefore a key priority for the UK’s presidency of the G8 last year. As the Prime Minister said at the October 2013 Open Government Partnership summit,
“transparency needs to extend beyond the public sector and into the private sector ... but there are also many wider benefits to making this information available to everyone. It’s better for businesses here ... developing countries ... and ... the more eyes that look at this information the more accurate it will be”.
That is why the UK has committed to establishing the world’s first publicly accessible registry of company beneficial ownership.
The EU’s fourth money-laundering directive is an opportunity to build on that momentum. The directive seeks to implement the revised standards of the Financial Action Task Force and the European Commission’s review of the implementation of the third money-laundering directive. We are committed to ensuring that the directive implements the FATF standards in full. As the Prime Minister wrote to European Heads of Government last year, our first collective step should be to mandate public central registries of company beneficial ownership as the benchmark for transparency of ownership and control. At the same time, the UK recognises that it is equally vital to prevent the potential misuse of trusts and similar legal arrangements.
The FATF sets the global standards to improve the transparency of the beneficial ownership of corporate and legal entities, including companies, and legal arrangements such as trusts. In setting those standards, the FATF recognises that preventing the misuse of trusts is critical but also explicitly recognises that trusts are different from companies. In particular, it is vital to understand that, unlike companies, common law trusts, such as those established under English and Welsh law, are not created by the state. Furthermore, trusts, unlike companies, are used for a range of purposes, such as benevolence, inheritance, protecting vulnerable people and family support. As such, the implications for privacy are far greater, and trusts therefore warrant different treatment.
Measures placed on trusts must therefore be different from those that apply for companies in order to be proportionate and effective. The Government support a mandatory requirement for trustees to know the beneficial ownership of their trusts. That, together with tax reporting to HMRC, to which the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, referred, and future automatic exchange of tax information agreements, will offer more transparency on trusts than ever before. In particular, through automatic exchange agreements, financial institutions will report information to national tax authorities on trusts holding accounts with them where the beneficiary is a resident of a partner jurisdiction. That information is then automatically shared with the partner jurisdiction. There are already 44 signatories to this international standard on automatic exchange, which creates a web of information exchange that will provide greater transparency on trusts than ever before.
This approach provides a proportional and effective means of enhancing transparency on trusts holding financial assets, given that they pose the greatest money- laundering risk. The Government oppose the mandatory registration requirement for trusts, which, together with the creation of central registries of trusts, was recently adopted as the European Parliament’s position on the directive. Given the transparency afforded by automatic transfer of information agreements, we consider registration of trusts to be a disproportionate approach and, in particular, one which undermines the common-law basis of trusts in the UK. As such, we continue to work with other member states, civil society and the private sector to ensure effective treatment of trusts.
Beneficial ownership has proved to be the most contentious issue in discussions over the fourth money-laundering directive. We are under no illusions about the challenges ahead. Following agreement between member states, negotiations to reach a mutually agreed final text with the European Parliament are likely to be challenging, given the position adopted by MEPs, as has been described. I assume that among the small minority of those who voted against this directive was a full turnout of the British UKIP contingent.
What happens next is that we are working with the Council presidency and other member states to agree a compromise that would limit the scope of obligations on trusts to those holding financial assets, which the UK would satisfy through existing reporting obligations for trusts holding financial assets, domestic reporting requirements and automatic exchange of tax information agreements. Such a compromise would complement the UK’s advocacy of ambitious action on company beneficial ownership. Of course, such an approach would exclude, for example, wills from the implementation of the directive, as wills do not form that category of trust.
Negotiations are ongoing, and we expect the Greek presidency to seek agreement among member states over the next few months. The subsequent Italian presidency would then seek the conclusion of the directive during the second half of 2014, in co-operation with the European Parliament. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the decision in the Council will be by qualified majority vote.
A number of questions were asked of me—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Before the Minister leaves that point, it might be a good place to press him on the famous doctrine of subsidiarity. In view of the difference between our system and the other systems in Europe, would it not be a good idea to use subsidiarity?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the approach I set out would mean that we would have a different way of reporting the majority of trusts. Therefore, there would not be a common system across the EU. The Government’s view is that it is very important that, across all the EU, there is a requirement for both companies and trusts to be more transparently described than they are at the moment. That is why we put a huge amount of effort into pursuing the concept of the mandatory requirement on beneficial ownership of companies. We want to ensure that, as far as possible, information about trusts that could be problematic for money-laundering purposes will be more generally available. Our proposals would do that in respect of the UK without having a full mandatory register in the same way as we propose for companies. We accept that there is a difference in nature between the two, but we think we can have the best of both worlds by having that difference of approach between them.
In response to the question from my noble friend Lord Dykes, trusts would not become default alternatives to companies because there are the requirements to report financial information to HMRC and to pay tax where appropriate and also for the automatic exchange of information where the beneficiary is a foreign national.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Would the requirement on the trustees and trust extend to revealing who the beneficial owners are?
Lord Newby
I am not sure I can give my noble friend a definitive answer now. I may be able to, but in any event I will write to him about that.
My noble friend Lord Dykes referred to the challenges of making a risk assessment in this area. Of course, it is almost an impossible task. I do not think that the risk assessment is a key part of the process. We do it because we have a broad sense of what the risks are, without being able to get to the nearest pound or euro.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Phillips’ earlier question, I should have been clearer: the answer is yes.
My noble friend Lord Dykes also asked about third country equivalence. Commission proposals do not include provisions for listing of third countries as having equivalent money-laundering or terrorist-financing regimes. Under the third money-laundering directive, this proved to be a problematic process, and the white list of equivalent jurisdictions was difficult to keep up to date. The FATF peer reviews of member states heavily criticised this white-listing process, and we support the Commission’s view.
My noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury discussed the reductions in HMRC staff. It is not a question of whether they are more efficient at doing the same jobs. The truth is that the way in which we manage the tax affairs of the vast bulk of individuals and companies is now online. A huge number of staff whose jobs were essentially related to dealing with paper are no longer necessary. The reduction in staff is largely in response to changed circumstances. I remind my noble friend that we put in an additional almost £1 billion in this Parliament for staff working on tax avoidance and evasion. That has already generated several million pounds-worth of additional revenue beyond what we believe would otherwise have been obtained. There has been a change in gear, if you like, in the way that HMRC operates.
To sum up, given that my time is very brief, the UK is leading from the front on an agenda that places a practical emphasis on transparency and accountability. The Government are working to ensure that the EU shows similar ambition on what is a cross-border issue, with serious implications for developed and developing countries alike. We want the outcome to be fair and proportionate, but we also require it to be effective. That is what we are working towards and what I am optimistic that we will achieve.
Ukraine
(10 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the political situation in Ukraine.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the several noble Lords who have taken a Thursday afternoon out after a long week to take part in this debate. I will not have an opportunity afterwards, so I thought that I would get in my appreciation of this fine attendance on an important matter here and now.
In 2014, as we look back on the centenary of the Great War, a plethora of new books reminds us that events can be overtaken by miscalculation compounded by misunderstanding. When tactics supersede strategy, an inevitability takes hold. Against the memory of those historic events, it is important neither to underestimate the events in Ukraine of the past few months nor to overstate parallels with the Cold War or other analogies. At this point, we cannot know where the invasion of Ukraine by Russia will lead us.
However, we can be sure of certain things: whether this is an act of historical significance is not in doubt. It has marked a change in the world order. In the past 20 years there has been a debate about the change in power politics, evidenced in the demise of bipolarity, with unipolarity and the US moving to hegemonic status after the demise of the Soviet Union. Alongside this has been the challenge to its neighbours posed by the rise of China and, in response, the US pivot to Asia.
The question in international relations scholarship in the past decade has been whether we are seeing the emergence of a multi-polar world, but one where essentially western norms and values have prevailed, with buy-in from emerging powers into “western” institutions, or whether we are living in “no one’s world”, as described by the American academic Charles Kupchan, where no single overwhelming power is dominant and norms are in a state of flux.
The events leading up to 27 February, when Russia invaded and seized Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula, seem to point in the direction of a passing of the old order, or indeed, in the words of the Economist, the forming of a disturbing “new world order”. The invasion of a sovereign country other than as an act of self-defence or under international humanitarian law, sanctioned by the international community, cannot be a light thing, even when carried out by a former superpower wielding a United Nations Security Council veto.
The excuses given by Mr Putin in drawing parallels with NATO actions in Kosovo are absurd. In Kosovo, there was grave and present danger of a severe humanitarian catastrophe after evidence of widespread ethnic cleansing in the immediate region. Attempts were made to seek consensus in the UN Security Council but, in the face of a Russian veto and after some deliberation, it was decided to take action through NATO.
Even more absurd are Russia’s claims that the Government in Ukraine are illegitimate and that, hence, Russia will not enter talks. In Ukraine, after months of ongoing protests against the elected Government and more than 100 people killed—mostly at the hands of state security snipers deliberately shooting to kill—it was the Parliament which, on 20 February, approved a resolution calling for a return to barracks of the military and a ban on firearms. Once the police and military conformed with the vote in Parliament, Mr Yanukovych and his allies decided that the game was up and fled to Russia. On 22 February, the President was deposed for abandoning his duties and an acting President was appointed. From that point, it took a mere five days for Russia to take Crimea.
This is not the first time that an elected Government have been driven from office, and it will not be the last. Only a deaf and blind leader can cling on to office when all around him see evidence of egregious corruption, human rights abuses and kleptocratic governance. Of course it is preferable that there be constitutional measures, such as votes of no confidence, to oust those who command no support, but the fact remains that Yanukovych lost the support of his own majority in Parliament.
I turn to the here and now and the consequences of the events of the past few weeks. The most immediate are for the people of Ukraine. They have 40,000 Russian troops massed at their border with full logistical back-up support for invasion, including military hospitals. The threat is palpable. According to NATO, a Russian invasion could be accomplished in between three and five days, with the potential to take Moldova and Transnistria as well.
Alongside that are Ukraine’s economic woes. Without deep and structural reform, and with sovereign default on the horizon, the EU offer of a $15 billion loan is welcome. Ukraine’s currency fell by 30% between November and late February, and the Government are now running out of funds to cover public employees’ salaries. Although it is entirely understandable for the IMF to seek to protect its funds from corruption by sticking to its stringent conditions and reform agenda, it is surely somewhat dangerous for the fund and the EU to dither while Russia destabilises the interim Government from within, as well as starving them of energy.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what conversations the Government are having with the IMF about a speedy allocation of funds and whether the UK is having conversations with the German Government about additional bilateral loan guarantees by those countries within the EU which can give—a coalition of the more solvent, perhaps, rather than a coalition of the willing.
There is also the present question of the Ukrainian elections on 25 May. What arrangements are being drawn up with the OSCE for the elections, which are now only some five weeks away? There has been gnashing of teeth in European capitals about the Kerry-Lavrov talks. In my book, they are a welcome development. They are less neo-imperialism and perhaps more pragmatism. EU foreign policy co-ordination is still embryonic. I experienced that myself last weekend at the Königswinter conference in Cambridge, where my German colleagues took a rather different view. “Our histories are different”, they said, “hence the lack of an EU strategic Russia policy”.
For Ukraine, after the formation of a new Government, it is imperative that that Government build a consensus for enhanced protection for minorities and entrench it constitutionally with strengthened regional autonomy. It is a relatively new state, and centralised structures seldom work when there is significant diversity in the population. Alongside Ukraine, we, the international community, should not write off Crimea. There is a tendency among policymakers to write off a land grab by Russia. There is an element of fuzzy historical referencing accompanied by a shrug of the shoulders.
I make it clear that I am not advocating a NATO invasion to free Crimea, despite the illegitimacy of its referendum and return to Russia. There has been a change to the territorial integrity of a sovereign state by its neighbour. Should that situation be accepted unchallenged, it presages similar attempts across the world. There will be few countries with minority populations across borders which cannot but worry about the consequences that will flow from Crimea. So every instrument of negotiation from asset freezes to sanctions and a recalibration of hard power as deterrents must be employed to sanction the aggressor.
The costs will be borne by us all, the Russians as well as the EU states, but the upholding of international law through sanctioning an aggressor may be the lesser cost in the long run. If by demonstrating that there is a united response from the West a negotiation can indeed be brokered with Russia along the lines that Crimea be reinstated within Ukraine, with an agreement that Ukraine be not given NATO membership for a period, that would appear to be the minimum acceptable outcome.
In concluding, I return to my opening remarks about the importance of upholding international law. Assurances need to be credible to be worth the paper they are written on. One casualty of the Crimean invasion is that there is less confidence in the West’s assurances in a post-Crimea world. This will undoubtedly affect our efforts to curb nuclear proliferation but will also diminish the West’s standing in a host of other matters.
Without being slavishly pro-American, there are many in the UK and Europe who have regretted the US’s increasing isolationism. Indeed, it was notable that last week was President Obama’s first visit to Brussels since his first election in 2008. While we have welcomed the closer trade links to flow from TTIP and, belatedly, a new emphasis on EU-US co-operation across foreign affairs generally, the events of the past few weeks, too, have illustrated the importance of hard power as a deterrent. It is evident now that we cannot neglect any of these aspects of power politics; it is better to learn those lessons now than allow an orderless world to emerge. I look forward to the Government’s response to these challenges.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on having secured this debate. The situation in Ukraine remains extremely dangerous. The prime risk in my estimation is probably not further Russian invasion, although no one can write that off, of course, but a scenario in which events get out of control in ways that no one intended.
For the people of Ukraine, this is a time of hope, yet the problems to be coped with are just awesome. “Hope for the best, but plan for the worst” is the motto adopted by Ukraine’s new Minister for the Economy. It will not be political reform alone but the interaction of political and economic change that will determine which of these outcomes is most likely.
Simon Tilford from the Centre for European Reform has made a telling comparison of the diverging economic fortunes of Poland and Ukraine during the past 20 years. The Polish economy in 1990 was only 20% larger than the Ukrainian economy, but by 2001-02 it was fully three times as big—a quite extraordinary statistic.
I want to argue that three basic structural dilemmas will have to be resolved during the next two or three years in Ukraine if there is to be political and economic stability. First, how will the economic shock effects of the IMF’s reform package be managed politically? That package involves radical public sector reforms, higher oil and gas prices and a swathe of job losses. There will be an awful lot of pain before there is any discernible gain, and somehow that will have to be managed. Secondly, the presidential election is in late May, as the noble Baroness has indicated. How can progress towards democracy be reconciled with technocratic control imposed externally, because that is how it is going to have to be? We have seen from the example of Greece how such a process fosters extremism even in established democratic states, and Ukraine is not, of course, an established democratic state—far from it. Thirdly, devolution from Kiev is certainly necessary, but how will it be achieved without stoking up the forces of separation in areas with a high proportion of Russian speakers?
As noble Lords know, the Russian version of federalism for Ukraine is intended to dismember the country. What role will the UK Government seek to play in helping to resolve these core dilemmas, without which substantial progress in Ukraine is impossible? Does the Minister accept that a more integrated EU foreign policy will be needed in future, going beyond that established in the Lisbon treaty? One of the main things that has changed is that there is now an arc of instability going all the way round from the top of the eastern border of Europe, through the Middle East and north Africa and going below north Africa. That situation was quite unanticipated and is going to involve quite a reorganisation of political leadership on the part of the EU and the US to cope with it. I welcome the Minister’s views on that.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend on securing this debate and giving us another chance to look at these issues, which are obviously very serious. Prior to the recent vote of the UN General Assembly condemning Russia’s invasion of Crimea, it transpired that several countries were threatened with retaliation if they voted against Russia. The resolution was passed by 100 votes to 11, with some abstentions, in spite of the threats of retaliatory measures, such as expelling migrant workers, aborting gas supplies or imposing trade bans. Afterwards, a spokesman at Russia’s UN mission denied any threats had been made, saying:
“We never threaten anyone. We just explain the situation”.
To me, that sounds like a Mafioso making you an offer that you cannot refuse.
At more or less the same time, Vladimir Putin’s previous chief economic adviser, Andrey Illarionov, tells us that Putin’s real aim is to create “historical justice” with a return to the days of Tsarist Russia, reconquering Belarus, the Baltic states and, of course, Finland. He warned that Putin protects what belongs to him and his predecessors—Tsar Nicholas II and Stalin.
So what are we going to do? I would like to make just two points in the three minutes that I have. First, I have to say that I agree entirely with our Prime Minister when in the Hague last week he said that it was our,
“duty to embrace the new technique”,
of shale gas to reduce dependence in Europe on Russian energy, calling it a “wake-up call”.
In our earlier debate in this House on Ukraine, I called for the UK to believe the science and not to be persuaded or dissuaded by the politics. Natural gas was the origin of the crisis in Ukraine. Russia keeps Ukraine and much of Europe dependent on gas at prices just low enough to disincentivise fracking of shale gas. State-run media and propaganda continually spread disinformation critical of fracking and supportive of opponents to the process. As the president of the Association of Liberal Democrat Engineers and Scientists, I can say that its position paper on shale gas is absolutely on the button. There is no doubt that for the foreseeable future gas has to be the fossil fuel of choice, producing less carbon dioxide per unit of energy than the others. We agree totally with the conclusion of the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society that,
“the health, safety and environmental risks associated with …fracking … as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through regulation”.
So I ask the Minister if she could confirm in her reply that the Government are poised to remove potential legal barriers to the exploration and development of shale gas deposits in the UK and that the proposed growth Bill, which I believe will be in the Queen’s Speech, will include measures to change trespass laws to prevent landowners denying access needed to assess prospective shale gas fields.
My second point is that the UK must act in the financial sector, not just in response to President Putin’s actions but to restore a somewhat tarnished international finance sector. There has been a stream of allegations from sources in Ukraine that corrupt officials and business people have been laundering their funds through the UK, yet asset recovery has been insignificant compared with the problem. As a director of the advisory board of Transparency International, I am aware that the UK’s banking sector froze less than 1% of some £30 billion that the Russian Central Bank estimates left Russia as the proceeds of crime between 2010 and 2014.
Our financial authority believes that between £23 billion and £27 billion has been laundered through the City of London each year. The Anti-Corruption Foundation in Moscow has revealed corrupt activities regarding the Sochi Olympics and the Transnet Pipelines company, alone worth more than £12 billion.
My final point is that major changes are required if the UK is to detect, freeze and seize the corruptly obtained assets that are flowing undetected through the financial system. Clean up corruption in the City and hit Putin and his cronies where it hurts.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important debate. We are grateful to the noble Baroness who initiated it and indeed for the very wise things that she said in her own observations.
I suggest that we see this terrible crisis as symptomatic and that we take a moment or two to look at history. The story of the struggle for identity in Russia has gone on for centuries. Is it to be a Western-orientated power when the prevailing language is French in St Petersburg, or are we to search for the soul of Russia, never quite identified, somewhere behind?
In that context, the role of the “strong man” has become crucial. In Russia there is a KGB elite exercising ruthless power, and consequently there is a lot of corruption. What is happening now is not new in human history: it is in part a great diversion to keep the Russian public distracted from the injustices and imperfections of their own society. We have seen this in the erosion of human rights, in the curbing of the freedom of the media and in the oppression of civil society.
What Putin did in Crimea is obviously wrong; it was a blatant breach of the international rule of law. It is difficult, though, and we must all confess this, to think of any referendum organised in any other circumstances in Crimea that would have resulted in a different conclusion. We have to accept that, and that takes us into deep waters. When we preach about the virtues of self-determination and the rule of law, we need a little humility because the world looks at us and says, “Hey, hang on a moment. What about Iraq? There was no specific UN Security Council resolution”, “What about Guantánamo Bay, which is still operating?”, and, “What about rendition, whose issues are still unresolved?”. Yet we go around preaching as though we were the centre of virtue in the world.
We need to get back to a sense of the international struggle together to reassert the importance and indispensability of human rights and the international rule of law. No matter how terrible this crisis, it may give us a good opportunity to start rebuilding together. But we will not do that by preaching; we will do it by dialogue, conversation and engagement. However, we must stand firm. It is clear that we cannot just have a breach of international law as has happened on the Crimean issue. If we then move on to talk about sanctions, though, for God’s sake do not let us posture in a hollow way that is not credible. We have to see the sanctions through, even if that means facing up to the issue of the southern pipeline.
The paradoxes are also strong, and they need to be frankly put to the Russians. I was deeply involved in the whole story of the north Caucasus. There, the Russian line was that self-determination was not acceptable and they ruthlessly repressed it. Now we suddenly hear from them that self-determination is central to any way forward. Again, we must examine our own record. We did not speak out strongly enough on the north Caucuses, so where is our credibility here? We also have to look at our failure on issues of human rights and civil society in Russia to be anything but rather muted in our comments.
We must stand firm, but in a context of somehow rebuilding some kind of dialogue. To those who say that it is simply a matter of telling the Russians what they must do, I say that as we are not going to invade Russia or to go to war with Russia, how the hell are we going to get this right in the long run if we do not get into some sort of mutuality? That means that if the Russians suggest that it is appropriate to think of federation, we do not automatically dismiss it because the Russians said it but, in the context of the ethnic challenges, look at whether we have to examine the proposition.
Lord Dykes (LD)
My Lords, I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I agree very much with his exhortation that we should not carry on preaching. Time is very short, so all I have time for is to refer to some aspects of the historical past and the United States’ policy on this matter because there were faults everywhere in the long lead up to what has happened.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Falkner on launching this debate. I would embarrass her by commending the thoughtfulness and restraint she has shown on this matter in recent weeks. John McCain and other people would probably like a third world war—perhaps that is an unfair comment on John McCain, but there are some people who would relish the idea. They are a tiny minority, thank goodness, and most people are being very sensible and empirically restrained on this matter.
If you go back to the end of the Cold War, there is a link with the United States and the inconsistency of American leadership in these matters. It is no good us being slavish supporters of everything the United States does. That has been a great mistake for Britain. I hope we will get away from it if we become once again a self-confident member of the European Union. At the moment, we are in transition from nervousness to panic about UKIP and all that, but we need to get our self-confidence back and be a strong, active member of the European Union.
NATO is taking the lead. I think what has been done so far has been correct. Russia has quite rightly been condemned, but the inconsistency in America has been there. When the Cold War ended, we saw the reaction to the end of the Soviet Union. The humiliation that Russians experienced at that stage was enormous, but instead of us being sympathetic to that psychologically and supporting Russia as a great world country, even if not a leading world power, we were very aggressive and critical about Russia and all its aspects, particularly Russian civil society, and said that there was nothing good about Russia. Everything was wrong there and suspect, although there are things to worry about, as my noble friend Lord Chidgey said. I think the Russians probably expected us to do the same as them. They folded up the Warsaw Pact. We carried on with NATO. I think Putin also expected that NATO would finish, but we found artificial out-of-theatre excuses to carry on with NATO. These things have to be accepted empirically and objectively. I am not talking down our Western cause because that is the priority for all of us.
When the promise was made to Gorbachev, and I think repeated to Putin and to Yeltsin as well, that there would not be a NATO country next to Russia, that solemn promise was breached by the West and NATO. These things are facts. You can imagine that someone with the personality of Putin would react in the wrong way, aggressively, to those things, but I hasten to add that that does not condone what has happened in Crimea. The referendum is a reality. We have to accept it. If Russia were foolishly to go further than that into new territories or attack Ukraine, it knows that that would be madness. We hope and pray that this is the end of this affair, so far. It is not easy to see how it will work out in the longer term. There may be a reconciliation between the more democratic Ukraine and Russia as the end result. That would be a very good result.
The inconsistency of American policy in the Middle East peace process has allowed 35 vetoes since 1967 and has allowed Israel, a wonderful country with wonderful people but a lousy Government, to disobey international law all the way through and get away with it. Quite rightly, Saddam Hussein was expelled from Kuwait after one year by the international community. However, Israel has been in the Occupied Territories for nearly 50 years and nothing has been done about it. People notice these things. There is an idea that John Kerry will suddenly come along and say, “Well, I hope you didn’t notice what happened before but we’re now going to solve it”, but there is now a complete vacuum. Netanyahu will not co-operate. You have to have a sensible Government. It is no wonder that young Israelis have gone to live in Berlin: they are fed up with the situation in Israel with its extreme policy. Therefore, the United States’ leadership has been weak and inconsistent. It needs to be better in the future and then it can claim to be perhaps not the exclusive leading world power but a very important country.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for obtaining this debate. I was the BBC “Newsnight” producer in Moscow during the fall of the Soviet Union and I have been back to both Ukraine and Russia many times since then. Therefore, I share your Lordships’ great concern about the events that have been taking place. However, it seems to me that one of the battles on which we really have to concentrate is for the hearts and minds of the Russian-speaking people of Ukraine. If we can build a country which is politically and economically stable, as the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, mentioned, it will be a country in which all its citizens, including the Russian speakers, will want to live.
For the past 20 years, Ukraine has been increasingly dysfunctional—a trend which has accelerated in the past three years as corruption has extended into almost every aspect of Ukrainian life and there has been a destruction of the rule of law. We now have to channel the energies released by the events in February to create a democratically accountable Government who are supported by an independent judiciary and an accountable police.
The Ukrainian Government have set up an anti-corruption body, which is trying to think about how to introduce transparency into government. It is going to need a lot of support from our Government and the Governments of the EU. Open government depends on publishing reliable data about expenditure and income. An open procurement policy makes it harder to hide bribes and overprice contracts. I have spoken to DfID, which obviously has the gold standard on this and is well known for leading the way in open government and open contracts. It said that it has had someone in Kiev assessing the situation and looking at what can be done. I should like to ask the Minister what else can be done to make sure that DfID’s expertise can be rapidly deployed to help the Government in Ukraine to establish themselves as transparent.
One of the worst areas of corruption has been the subsidising of domestic gas prices so that they are eight times cheaper than those charged to industry. As a result, it is estimated that last year alone $2 billion-worth of fraud was perpetrated as gas was diverted towards business, with businessmen pocketing the difference. As the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, said, the IMF package includes a 50% rise in the cost of Ukraine’s domestic gas, to take effect from May. This will hit many people on low incomes very hard. The country has an average income of $6,500 a year and, without some kind of safety net, I am concerned that the price hike is going to stoke discontent and inflame the eastern provinces in particular. Surely western Governments can contribute to any safety net to help to smooth this transition period while the price rise takes effect.
A transparent Government and business sector are important, but they go hand in hand with the implementation of the rule of law. Ukraine’s 1996 constitution emphasises the importance of the rule of law and specifically states that all citizens are subject to universally applicable laws. However, for the past 20 years these laws have not been implemented by either the judiciary or the police. The trend over the past few years of President Yanukovych’s rule has been to incorporate the judiciary into the executive arm of the Government. One of the country’s leading legal experts said that court decisions were decided by a phone call from the presidential administration.
The EU countries of eastern Europe have huge experience of transforming the judiciary from being an organ of government and the Communist Party to being independent. After major reforms of the institutions and personnel, the judges in much of eastern Europe are exercising impressive independence. Surely we should ensure that this experience is shared with the Ukrainians to help them to build similar institutions.
Likewise, anyone who has been to Ukraine, which I have, and has suffered from the corruption of the police—particularly the traffic police—will know that the corruption is universal. Nobody trusts the police. They are there for their own good and not for the good of the law. That, I think, is the view of most people in the country. It is interesting to look at what has happened in Georgia, where they fired all the police force at the basic level, re-recruiting from universities and training them. They looked really carefully at the hierarchy. That has been quite effective.
Democratic accountability cannot be imposed on Ukraine from the outside. The Ukrainian people have to come together and coalesce around a determination to build a country worth living in. We in the West can do many things to help and advise the Ukrainians in this long and difficult task. I urge the Minister to ensure that our Government do everything they can to help this process.
Lord Skidelsky (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on having secured this very timely debate, although I fear that my analysis will diverge from hers and, indeed, from that of most other noble Lords who have spoken—not from all of them and not from all their analysis, but partly.
I want to make three points. First, it is a serious mistake that the West has refused to concede any form of Monroe doctrine to Russia, even in respect of countries which until very recently formed part of the historic Russian state. That is completely unrealistic. Rather, it has actively sought to prise those countries from Russia’s orbit, using as its instruments NATO expansion and financial and logistical support for Russophobe movements in newly independent adjacent territories, not excluding those groups tainted with extreme nationalism and anti-Semitism.
The fact is that international law, of which we all speak and which we all of course support, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of international order, and the West, which preaches it relentlessly, has ignored it whenever it has suited it to do so. I think that the West has never stopped to consider how its policies are viewed in Moscow, or indeed by most Russians, even those strongly opposed to the Putin regime. It is not just this one man who has power-mad ideas; his views on what western policy has been, certainly in the past 10 or 15 years, are strongly supported by most Russian people. I believe that the West made a historic mistake in not disbanding NATO after its work was done and replacing it with a new European security system which included Russia. These things are all coming home to roost.
Secondly, I have to ask what the purpose of sanctions is. Are they supposed to punish Russia for annexing Crimea or to deter it from future “escalation”? If the former, they are surely pointless, as the deed is done. Do the Government seriously expect that Crimea will be returned to Ukraine? It will not be. If the object is deterrence, what is it that Russia is to be deterred from doing? Can the Minister answer that without retreating into obfuscation?
The western response to the crisis casts Russia in the role of aggressor. However, I agree with Peter Lieven when he writes:
“The danger comes from the possibility of clashes between the Ukrainian nationalist and neo-fascist volunteers who led the overthrow of the previous government in Kiev and opposing Moscow-backed pro-Russian volunteers in the east of the country”.
In other words, the danger lies in the disintegration of the Ukraine state—a point that has been perfectly accurately made by other noble Lords. Peter Lieven adds that if they get out of hand, such clashes could lead to Russian intervention, war and the partition of Ukraine.
My final point is that, if we are seriously concerned to avoid such a disastrous sequence, we should not be calibrating our hard power instruments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, suggested, but working with the Russians to preserve a viable Ukrainian state. The Russians have presented their own ideas on how to do this, which should be seriously and urgently tested. Broadly, they propose a “neutral” Ukraine on the model of Finland and a federal state on the model of Switzerland. I think we have already had suggestions in this debate that have pointed in that direction. The first would exclude Ukrainian membership of NATO but not Ukrainian membership of the European Union. The second would aim to secure a new constitutional settlement through practical guarantees of minority rights. I will not go into that because I do not have time. Financial aid from both Russia and the EU would be conditional on Kiev’s acceptance of such a settlement.
Will such a sensible solution come to pass or will bloodshed, disintegration or something much worse come out of it? A sensible solution will probably not come to pass. I fear that we are too legalistic and moralistic to do what is required, but we can only hope for the best.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, the crisis in Crimea and Ukraine is probably the biggest security challenge we have faced in Europe for a generation. We hear from NATO sources that around 35,000 Russian troops are massed near the Ukrainian eastern border along with tanks and special forces. They have the logistical back-up to keep them there for some considerable time, and although we have heard recently that Russian troops are being withdrawn, we need to be on our guard to ensure that this is a significant pull-out of troops rather than a rotation of forces. Either way, we are a long way from seeing the end of this crisis and its consequences.
Putin’s speech on 18 March was unforgiving in its tone and aggression, but it is worth listening to it to gain an understanding of the sense that Russia needs to feel strong again and the humiliation that it felt after the break-up of the USSR. Of course, Russia would love to feel powerful again. Its initial moves to establish a new customs Eurasian trade bloc have been thwarted by the Ukrainian public, who made it clear that if there was a choice they would rather have a customs union with the EU. Russia has broken with the tradition that has developed since the end of the Cold War that assumes that disputes will be settled in Europe by diplomacy rather than military might. We were starting to be complacent in the belief that the only real currency of power in Europe was its economic rather than military might.
The crisis offers a test for two international organisations in particular—the EU and NATO. If they play it well, using deft and delicate diplomacy, we could see the situation settle. If they play it badly, it could have catastrophic consequences for Ukraine and the world.
The EU has now signed an association agreement with Ukraine promising co-operation and convergence over policy, legislation and regulation across a broad range of areas. Gradually and over time, therefore, the trade relationship between Ukraine and the EU—its second biggest trading partner after Russia and responsible for a third of Ukraine’s external trade—will be anchored in a market system that will insist on converging standards, both commercially and in terms of the values of the European Union such as democracy and the world of law. That pathway has started already. The EU loan was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. I am very pleased that she initiated this debate, and I thank her for her insightful introduction. But in the long term, we should see economic stability in the country and the rule of law that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lord Giddens talked about.
The EU has to act as one on the issue of Russia if it is to maintain any leverage. The energy vulnerability of the continent means that it can proceed only with extreme caution as 30% of its gas imports are from Russia. That is worth £60 billion to the Russian economy, so the EU has an important lever.
We do not need just to reset the energy market in the UK. We need to reset it in the EU as well. We have been talking about it for a long time. The initial energy debate in the EU started when Russia turned off the taps to Ukraine in the early 2000s. We have tinkered about with it, but we have not really taken the energy issue within Europe very seriously. This should be a call to action. However, we have to be very careful not to provoke Russia into isolation in Europe in the long term. Russia, understandably, does not want to feel hemmed in. That is why it is crucial that NATO desists from offering Ukraine full membership of the organisation. NATO promised Gorbachev, after German reunification, that there would be no future expansion to the east. That promise has been broken time and again. I am sure that many of the old Eastern bloc countries are quite pleased at the moment, especially those with Russian minorities, that that promise was broken, but we have to understand the importance of making sure that NATO does not welcome Ukraine as a full member.
In 2010, the Ukrainian Parliament voted to exclude the goal of,
“integration into Euro-Atlantic security and NATO membership”.
The two international organisations now need to show their mettle and their commitment to long-term stability in Europe in the forthcoming weeks. Yes, a strong message needs to be sent to Putin that tearing up international agreements and breaking international law is totally unacceptable and that there are and will be consequences, but we must be careful not to give any excuse for inflaming a situation that could lead to tragedy on our EU borders. If we manage that, we could end up with our ultimate goal: a democratic, open and liberal Ukraine, which is free from corruption and does not bully minorities, and a Russian neighbour that does not feel threatened by encirclement and will come to terms with the loss of empire. The Government continue to enjoy Labour support for the way they have handled this crisis so far.
The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Falkner for organising this debate and for the opportunity to update the House once again on the political situation in Ukraine. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the Benches opposite for their support in what has been an incredibly difficult time in terms of ensuring that diplomacy succeeds.
As noble Lords are aware, this House last debated the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and Russia’s illegal and wholly unacceptable annexation of Crimea on 18 March, and I updated the House on 25 March in replying to a Question. Her Majesty’s Government, working in close partnership with the European Union and an incredibly broad range of allies from across the international community, have continued to take incremental steps to ratchet up the pressure on the Russian Government in response to their continued violation of international law. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last week, their actions are a direct challenge to the rule of law around the world and should be of concern to all nations.
A great deal has been said in our debates about Russia’s motivation for the rapid illegal annexation of Crimea, Putin’s motivation and his view of Russia’s place in the world. Those matters have been discussed today. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, rightly said in a previous debate that Russia’s strategy belongs to the 19th century, not the 21st century. It cannot—it will not—go unanswered. However, our actions must, of course, be of this century: they must be measured, proportionate and always mindful of the need to encourage peace and stability rather than conflict. Our fervent wish for Ukraine, and for Russia, is that their peoples can live in a peaceful, stable and secure environment. Russia’s actions are achieving the opposite. Putin would have us accept that a historical mistake has somehow been corrected with the illegal annexation of Crimea and that it is the will of the Crimean people. However, this is not the view of Her Majesty’s Government or, indeed, of most of the free world. It was a land grab, achieved via a sham referendum under the threat of Russia’s military might. We must commend the Ukrainian Government’s restraint under such pressure.
I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said about Russia and isolation, but isolation in the global community is one of the levers that the international community has. The international community not recognising the illegal annexation of Crimea is a first step. A recent resolution at the United Nations General Assembly saw 100 nations affirm their commitment to Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Only a handful of nations voted with the Russian Federation against the resolution, including Zimbabwe, Cuba and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. I fear that Russian intransigence means that we must prepare for the long haul on this issue. We must show the strength of our convictions as a country, and with our allies, by maintaining our position and our actions. To this end, the Foreign Secretary met the Ukrainian Foreign Minister on 1 April to demonstrate UK support for Ukraine.
The European Council on 20 and 21 March announced further sanctions, bringing the total of those facing asset freezes and travel bans to 33. At the same Council meeting, the European Union, member states and Ukraine signed the political chapters of the association agreement, which again have been referred to today. That represents a very visible commitment on the part of the Ukrainian Government to a closer relationship with the EU, and to EU norms and values. For their part, the EU and member states’ signature of the association agreement represents their commitment to assist Ukrainian reform to make these aspirations a reality. To that end a proposal on a package of support potentially worth $14 billion to $18 billion will soon go to the IMF board.
NATO and Ukrainian Foreign Ministers met on 1 April in a further demonstration of international support for Ukraine. They agreed to suspend indefinitely all civilian and military NATO-Russia Council activity, except ambassadorial level dialogue and above. At this time of crisis it is absolutely right for us to step up activities that provide reassurance and confidence for NATO allies without provocation. NATO has worked hard to build a constructive relationship with Russia but Russia, through its actions in Ukraine, has forced us to step back from our previous level of engagement. As the Prime Minister made clear, it would be wrong for the G8 summit to go ahead in Sochi in June. G7 leaders will instead meet in June in Brussels, without Russia present. This demonstrates further the cost to Russia of its policy on Crimea.
It is tragic that Russia, so close culturally and ethnically to Ukraine and with whom it has shared so much history, should impinge on Ukraine’s sovereignty. We once more urge Russia, as we have done, to seek urgent ways to de-escalate the critical situation in Ukraine and to engage with the Ukrainian Government to address their concerns. We are concerned about the visit to Crimea by the Russian Prime Minister on 31 March, which was particularly unhelpful in relation to de-escalation. Solutions imposed at the point of a gun have no hope of resolving a crisis which can and should be resolved by diplomatic means. We are resolute in our determination to support the right of the Ukrainian people to make their—
Lord Skidelsky
Is the Minister really saying that the annexation of Crimea was against the wishes of the Crimean people and that, had they been free to do so, they would have overwhelmingly rejected it?
Baroness Warsi
What we have said consistently and in direct reply to that is that we cannot accept any referendum held with no preparation and down the barrel of a gun, without really an answer on that ballot paper to vote “no”, which were the two options given. If, in due course, there was a referendum appropriately held with the necessary constitutional backing in the right way that referendums are held, I do not think that anybody would dispute people having their right to self-determination. We are resolute in our determination to support the right of the Ukrainian people to make their democratic choices about the future of their own country. I think we would all agree that the way it was done was not acceptable.
Key questions to which noble Lords quite rightly returned are how we now frame our relationship with Russia and how to address Russia’s concerns about the intentions of the West. The crisis in Ukraine is the most serious test of European security so far this century. Russia’s actions cast a menacing shadow across the continent of Europe. Without swift and significant steps by Russia to de-escalate the situation, the Government remain resolute in determining that our relationship with Russia can be seen only through the prism of an illegal and ill-judged incursion into Ukrainian territory.
The actions we and our allies have taken are proportionate and it is clear that their impact is already being felt. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked about sanctions. The European Union has adopted unprecedented sanctions against Russia, including asset freezes and travel bans. Preparatory work is already under way for more far-reaching European Union sanctions, including economic and trade measures. These sanctions are a message and a warning to the Russian Government. We want Russia to enter direct talks with Ukraine and we will continue to work with our international partners to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis. These sanctions are a part of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, spoke about the need for dialogue with Russia. We absolutely agree with that. The noble Lord is right: dialogue with Russia is key. We continue to engage with Russia to try to find a solution to the current crisis. My noble friend Lord Dykes said that we need to work towards a positive outcome. A positive outcome is an increase in democracy in both Russia and Ukraine. We are doing what we can to support that in Ukraine.
We continue to choose our actions with a long-term strategy in mind. As members of the EU, we have enjoyed the longest period of peace and stability in European history. Our NATO alliance has stood the test of time to become the most successful military alliance ever.
To echo the words of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, we are not asking Ukraine to choose between Russia and the West. We are saying that Ukraine should be free to choose to strengthen links with either, both or neither, but only Ukrainians themselves can decide their future. However, we can give Ukraine the support that it requires. My noble friend Lady Falkner asked what conversations we had already had in relation to IMF assistance, for example. Ukraine and the IMF reached a staff-level agreement last week on a two-year standby arrangement, supported by the international community. That will potentially unlock $27 billion. The IMF contribution will be between $14 billion and $18 billion, depending on other bilateral and multilateral contributions. As I said earlier, the agreement is expected to go to the IMF board—the executive board—next week.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked how IMF payments will be managed. I am sorry; I cannot read my own writing. We recognise that there will be pain in complying with the IMF conditions for assistance, including the need to increase domestic gas tariffs. The Government of Ukraine inherited a country in dire need of economic and political reform. The Government of Ukraine have committed to making this difficult reform and the UK and our international partners stand to assist in this. Of course, the conditionality of the IMF agreement is important because we know how many IMF programmes have in the past failed in Ukraine. Therefore, reform in relation to gas tariffs, governance and the financial sector are part of that package.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked about the role of DfID. The initial UK package of £10 million, which was announced a few weeks ago, is being put forward in co-ordination with DfID. We are working closely with international donors to see where expertise can best add value. DfID anti-corruption work is being done, in addition to the work being done by technical teams in Kiev, to identify where the UK can support energy and social reform sectors.
My noble friend Lady Falkner asked about arrangements for elections. The OSCE will monitor the Ukrainian elections which are due to take place on 25 May. About 100 long-term election observers are already in Ukraine. Short-term election observers will follow. The UK is contributing to the monitoring mission and is urging the Ukrainian Government to do all they can to ensure that the elections are free, fair and carried out in accordance with international norms.
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked about devolution and Russian federalism. As I said, the future of Ukraine is for Ukrainians to decide. Russia should respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and not seek to impose systems of governance on it which are not agreeable to the Ukrainian people. I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Chidgey regarding work in relation to the energy sector. The Government are, of course, discussing plans on the exploitation of shale gas in the UK as we speak.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on the need for wider EU action. We task the European Commission to prepare measures which will bring far-reaching economic consequences if Russia takes any further steps to destabilise Ukraine and, by June, to produce a comprehensive plan to reduce Europe’s dependency on energy from Russia. However, I agree that more needs to be done, and it needs to be done quickly. My noble friend Lord Chidgey also spoke about corruption and tackling assets which could potentially pass through London. I have a comprehensive answer on that but, in light of the time, I will write to him giving a detailed response.
In conclusion, Russia does have a choice to make: to take the path of de-escalation or face increasing isolation and tighter sanctions. President Putin should take notice of the clear, united and resounding message emanating from every democratic Parliament, including, of course, the mother of all Parliaments here. I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions in reinforcing that message today. Every diplomatic channel remains open. Nothing that has been done cannot be undone. We and our allies continue to urge Russia to show its strength in ending this crisis.
House of Lords
Payday Loans: Advertisements
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the number of payday loan advertisements watched by children.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, payday loan adverts are subject to the Advertising Standards Authority’s strict rules. The ASA will not hesitate to ban irresponsible adverts. The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice is currently considering the issue of payday loan advertising on children’s TV and the potential implications for ASA regulation. The Financial Conduct Authority has introduced new requirements on payday lenders, including mandatory risk warnings and signposts on debt advice in adverts. It can ban misleading adverts that breach its rules.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the reply. Daytime television, my Lords, is deluged with advertisements for payday loans, many of them including fluffy puppets, catchy jingles and smiley people. Children see these advertisements and, not surprisingly, when family money is tight, they pester their parents to take out these loans. I intend to table a Private Member’s Bill to ban all advertising of high-cost, short-term loans until after the watershed. Will the Government support me?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think it is right first to set out the scale of the problem. I am not doubting that there are issues, which is why the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice is looking explicitly at this matter. However, to set the issue in context, payday loan adverts in 2012 comprised 0.6% of TV ads seen by children aged four to 15, and, last year, all personal debt ads on children’s television amounted to 0.2% of total ad spend on children’s television. I am not saying that it is not an issue, but the number of ads being watched by children in this area is relatively modest—hardly more than one a week.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, payday loans are a form of grooming. So, to protect our children, should there not be an additional clause in the Advertising Standards Authority’s children’s code that refers to the scheduling of adverts that encourage potentially harmful lifestyle choices such as easy access to borrowing, including payday loans?
Lord Newby
My Lords, that is exactly why the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice is looking at this issue. We expect to hear from it in the next few months and there may be consequences for the ASA code. I have some difficulties about the use of the word “grooming” in this context. It has come to have a specific meaning in relation to sexual exploitation, and, whatever the problems with payday loans—and there are very considerable problems—they are not of that degree of difficulty.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has indicated that there has been a minor reduction over the past year, but the scale of payday loans is astonishing—and they are directed at children because that is a soft way to get at parents. Is this not something that we all ought to criticise and deplore, and on which we ought to expect authority to take action, because the only reason that daytime children’s television in particular is deluged with these loan advertisements is that it puts pressure on parents?
Lord Newby
My Lords, this Government have taken very strong action in respect of payday loans by giving the FCA very considerable powers in this area, which it has started to exercise. It is a sign of the times that yesterday DFC, one of the country’s three biggest payday loan providers, issued a profit warning and surrendered to a takeover, citing the tougher new regulatory regime. The weather is changing for payday loans.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that this is slightly to one side of the Question, but can my noble friend tell me whether any work is being done to find out how many advertisements for easy ways of gambling away your money are seen by children?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I do not have any specific response to that, except to say that the ASA is able to investigate any complaints about the effect of ads on particularly vulnerable groups, which potentially would include gamblers. Certainly, if you watch paid-for sport television, you get a very large number of ads for online betting, which I find distasteful—but, as with many things in life, there is an interesting argument to be had about the line between what is distasteful and what should be banned.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pity that the Minister has resorted to statistics to try to explain this away. All it needs is one of these very cleverly devised adverts to put pressure on children or to influence children to put pressure on their parents, who can ill afford to take out these loans. Will the Minister answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Mitchell: when he brings forward his Bill, will the Government give sympathetic consideration to supporting it?
Lord Newby
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, brings forward his Bill, the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice will have expressed a view on these loans. The Government will take very considerable account of what it says in forming their view about the noble Lord’s Bill.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, children do not watch only programmes that are designed for them; in some households they watch programmes all day. Can the Minister tell the House what percentage of advertising in general across the schedule is advertising for payday loans?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I do not have that figure. I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is there not a case for looking at daytime advertising? On the one hand, you have ads that are encouraging people to take out loans at very high interest rates and on the other you have people being encouraged to go on gaming sites. With hindsight, was it not a great mistake for the previous Government to abandon the principle with respect to gambling and advertising that we should not take any measures that stimulate demand?
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is a highly contentious issue and there are simply different views on it. As I said, personally I find those adverts distasteful, but that is not to say that I necessarily want to ban them all. One problem with a lot of adverts is that they encourage behaviour that might be thought to be irresponsible. There are a lot of ads on children’s TV for expensive toys and games that encourage children to say to their parents, “Can I have that toy and that game?”, which the parent cannot necessarily afford.
Prisons: Education and Training
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ramsbotham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact prison staff cuts have had on the provision of education, job training and substance abuse programmes in Her Majesty’s prisons.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, staff reductions have been made as part of the benchmarking reforms of public sector prisons. Benchmarking is the best means of delivering value for money for the public purse. It either increases purposeful activity or sustains current levels, and refocuses work and job training to enhance prisoners’ employment prospects on release. The Prison Service works closely with commissioners of substance misuse services and education to optimise the provision of these services to meet prisoners’ needs.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for that rather disappointing reply. Provision of and access to education and training are two key factors in any meaningful attempt to prevent reoffending. I cannot imagine that anyone responsible for the conduct of imprisonment could be happy about an Ofsted report which finds that, despite some prisons having state-of-the-art facilities:
“Training and education in prisons are very poor and are failing to support offenders into employment… In many prisons, training and education comes too far down the list of priorities for prison governors and other senior staff.”
Nor could anyone be happy about a London University Institute of Education survey which found that 62% of prison educators criticised the negative effect of payment by results on prisoners as learners, and on the overall quality of education. When prison educators are complaining and prison staff are speaking openly about the difficulties of getting prisoners to education due to cuts in staffing, I hope that Ministers are suitably concerned. Will the Minister please tell the House what steps are being taken to rectify the situation?
Lord Faulks
Many steps are being taken. Work is progressing on introducing a new mandatory assessment for all newly received prisoners by OLASS, the Offender Learning and Skills Service providers. This will ensure that all offenders receive a learning assessment focused on English and maths, rather than those who simply go on to learning. NOMS and its partners are working towards implementing better data about sharing arrangements. I should say that intensive maths and English courses are being piloted in prisons, based on a model adopted in the Army, particularly to address prisoners serving short sentences.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister just referred to purposeful activity for those who are in our prisons. I know of one women’s prison where this activity is filling sandwiches for Pret A Manger. Is this the kind of purposeful activity to which he refers?
Lord Faulks
Purposeful activity covers a number of different areas: work, training, education, PE and programmes designed to tackle the causes of prisoners’ offending. Quite a lot of the emphasis on purposeful activity is to try to allow prisoners to engage in activities where they will have some prospects of work outside, particularly in the catering business. With great respect to the noble Baroness, who I know has great knowledge of these issues, that is in fact not out of step with where they might be able to find employment afterwards.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister accept that prisons are overcrowded, and that controls and discipline are difficult to maintain? In fact, there has been an increase of 72% in calls on riot squads, and we have reached a high point in the level of deaths in custody. Under these circumstances, in order to ensure that prison’s objectives of education, training and jobs are not affected by cuts in government expenditure, would the Minister not agree that it is time for automatic inspections by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons?
Lord Faulks
Any violence or instability in prisons is clearly to be regretted. However, the noble Lord will be aware that assaults in prisons are at their lowest level since 2008, and the number of cases of escaping or absconding has reduced by more than 85% of what it was 10 years ago. I am afraid that I cannot accept that there are problems as a result of overcrowding. At the moment, although there is no room for complacency, matters are stable in the Prison Service.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, does the Minister recall the debate last Thursday in which it was mentioned that more than 5,000 IPP prisoners are being held in prison, two-thirds of whom are beyond their tariff, and that the main reason for this is the lack of training for rehabilitation? Given that this is costing more than £200 million a year, is it not penny wise, pound foolish to cut back on courses of that sort? Can the Minister give some assurance that these prisoners can have the hope of getting rehabilitation courses?
Lord Faulks
I well remember the debate and the prominent part which the noble Lord played in it. He will also recall the response that I gave him, which was that there was a considerable, co-ordinated effort to ensure that those IPP prisoners were enabled to engage in appropriate activities which would increase the likelihood of, although not guarantee, their release after hearing before the Parole Board. That is happening, and the Prison Service is well aware of the problem.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, on 1 April 24 years ago, if my recollection is correct, the British prison system was subject to a series of riots. A Conservative Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asked me to make a report. Another Conservative Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, received that report and the House of Commons, with one exception, indicated that it accepted the recommendations, limited to 12, in that report. I am very pleased that a Government of whom the Conservatives are part have now focused on the importance of rehabilitation. Does the Minister agree that if you are going to have rehabilitation, it is very important, first, to control the numbers in prison and, secondly, to have the staff needed to cope with that number of prisons, for the reasons identified by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham?
Lord Faulks
The noble and learned Lord is referring to the Strangeways report. I entirely accept that rehabilitation should be a key part of prison. The noble and learned Lord will recall that the transforming rehabilitation reforms mean that those serving short sentences for the first time will now be able to obtain support after leaving prison and will be enabled by means of resettlement prisons to have some continuity in the support that they receive inside and outside. I accept his general observations. It is a matter very much to be borne in mind.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, whatever the Justice Secretary is now saying, is not the reality of the situation that his policy is preventing family and friends sending books to prisoners? Does not a state which treats its prisoners with gratuitous harshness and which seeks to suppress the life of the mind put itself and society to shame?
Lord Faulks
That is not strictly within the Question but entirely predictable. The Secretary of State has not banned books. Each prisoner is entitled to 12 books in their cell. The libraries in prisons are impressive. If the noble Lord would like to visit one of the prison libraries, that can be arranged with my department. It is a matter of great disappointment to the librarians that so many people have criticised the provision of books. What the Secretary of State is trying to do is prevent people sending in parcels that do not always contain books, or not exclusively books, to try to stem the real problem there is in prisons of drugs and other contraband, extremist literature and the like. We are not banning books.
Health and Safety Executive
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the findings of the triennial review of the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and in doing so draw attention to my interest in the register.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, Martin Temple’s triennial review of the HSE concluded that the functions performed by the Health and Safety Executive are required and that it should be retained as a non-departmental public body. He made recommendations concerning potential efficiencies and opportunities to raise income, and the Minister for Disabled People has asked the HSE to work on these. Other recommendations require further consideration, and we will respond more fully later in the year.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what I take to be a positive reply. The Minister will be aware that the report refers to the “nearly universal praise” for the HSE, which it considers a reflection on its,
“impartiality … independence … professionalism and technical competence”.
What assurances can the Minister give that any requirement placed on the HSE to increase its commercial income will not impair those vital attributes, and what more can the Government do to promote the excellence of the HSE and the UK health and safety system?
Lord Bates
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. I think that Martin Temple pointed out exactly that. He paid tribute to the work of the HSE, which it does day in, and day out, in maintaining safety standards. One reason why this country enjoys such high standards of health and safety in the workplace is because of the work of the HSE. It is of course necessary to ensure that its work is efficient and effective. For that reason, he suggested that the HSE focus its efforts on major hazard sites rather than those areas of relatively low risk. That is what it has been doing over the past couple of years.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, one of the recommendations in the report is to delink the need to prop up the budget and fines for intervention. We have been here before with speed cameras, where there was a suspicion that police forces were increasing their budgets by overuse of speed cameras. How will my noble friend learn lessons from that, and from the recommendation in the report that fines for intervention should not be linked to propping up the budget of the HSE? What steps will he take to implement that?
Lord Bates
It is a good question. The point is that fines for intervention are where visits and inspections have taken place and problems have been found which have resulted in prosecution. In those circumstances, the view of the HSE and of the Government is that the taxpayer should not have to pick up the bill; the person who has not been fulfilling the obligation to implement the rules correctly should pay the price.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive played a key role on the Olympic construction site. Our country should be very proud that not a single person died as a result of that building work. Following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord German, the independent report states that the link between funding of the regulator and income from fines is a “dangerous model”. How will the Minister ensure that the HSE’s integrity and independence will be protected?
Lord Bates
That is a very good point. I certainly endorse what the noble Baroness said about the Olympics. There were 46,000 people working on that site and to have not one fatality is exemplary. That gives me the opportunity to point out that that is one thing that the UK does extraordinarily well. Fatalities in the workplace are much lower in the UK, at 0.71 per 100,000 workers, compared to an equivalent rate of 0.81 in Germany, 1.57 in Italy and 2.49 elsewhere. That is an important record, showing that the HSE is working correctly with contractors in major projects, and this will ensure that that work continues in future.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, one question raised in discussion of the review was the desirability of increasing commercial income for the HSE. Notwithstanding the Government’s view of that, will the Minister take this opportunity to assure the House that they have no plans to privatise the HSE?
Lord Bates
Yes, I can very quickly do that. There is absolutely no question of privatising the HSE, but Martin Temple, himself a businessman with a distinguished background in engineering and manufacturing, recognised that there were great opportunities, because the Health and Safety Executive is genuinely admired around the world. A lot of people are coming to look for good-will advice as to how to operate their systems, and I think it is absolutely right for the taxpayer that the HSE ought to be free to exploit those commercial opportunities to enable it to continue doing its excellent work around the UK.
Climate Change
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome this expert and comprehensive appraisal of climate change impacts. Unmitigated climate change poses a risk to natural ecosystems, human health, global food security and economic development. A combination of adaptation and mitigation will help to reduce the scale of the risk. Even under all those scenarios, some risk will remain. The report represents a consensus of 310 scientific experts.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Would she agree that the first way in which people are likely to experience climate change is through food—its shortage and its price? The report suggests that wheat yields over the next decade will go down by 2% and over two or three decades by 25%; fish stocks in tropical areas will be down by 40% to 60%. What intergovernmental institutions and organisations are in place to plan for this scenario? What role are the United Kingdom Government playing in that?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord poses a number of serious issues that are facing us. As he is aware, the UK has a lead on many of these issues. We work very closely with our EU and international partners to ensure that all of us are signed up to trying to mitigate as much as we can the impact climate change will have on food, but—let us not be in any doubt—unless we bring forward processes, we will face huge difficulties in the future.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, this latest report clearly states that the impact of climate change by the latter years of the century is likely to be less than 2% of global income and will be small relative to other factors such as economic development. Given that the co-chair of that report, Chris Field, is on record as saying that the really big breakthrough in this report is the new idea of thinking about management of climate change, would my noble friend agree that the time has come to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lawson, who has been saying exactly this for eight years? I declare my energy interests as listed in the register.
Baroness Verma
I am extremely grateful for my noble friend’s intervention highlighting the great work my noble friend Lord Lawson does in this field. However, as the noble Viscount will accept, I may not always agree with both noble friends. The report highlights the great risk of not doing anything. Whether you are sceptical of climate change or not, what we cannot allow to happen is to do nothing. It is really important, when leading scientists have produced evidence, that we respect that evidence and ensure that we respond to what is being told to us.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
My Lords, given that the noble Baroness recently replied to a debate on promoting a low-carbon economy, would she spell out the huge business opportunities that arise from promoting that low-carbon economy? What are the Government doing to help those opportunities arise?
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Of course, we have seen a real increase in the low-carbon sector; in the renewable sector itself we have seen since 2010 over £36 billion of investment come to the UK. It is a £3.2 trillion global marketplace out there, of which we have a fair share of £128 billion. There is much more to do. There are great opportunities. As last week showed, Siemens sees the UK as an ideal place for investment, by investing over £300 million in Hull.
Lord Roper (LD)
How will the results of the intergovernmental panel affect the position that the Government and their European Union partners are developing for next year’s framework convention conference in Paris?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, my noble friend knows of course that we work very closely with our European partners. We will of course push those that are slightly slower in coming forward in reducing their carbon emissions to do much better. We all need very ambitious targets. I hope that the conference will see that.
Lord Soley (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the number of organisations asking for a single voice, or person, in government whom they can approach about, for example, taxation on different fuels, which does not take into account the advantages and disadvantages in terms of their impact on climate change? That is a particularly important point and the Government could move on it. Will the Minister listen to those many organisations that want a place to go in government with a single message about what government can do to relate to their need to improve performance?
Baroness Verma
The noble Lord is of course right to raise that, but I assure him that climate change is embedded in thinking across all departments.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
In that case, my Lords, perhaps it might be time for the noble Baroness to comment on the fact that we have a climate change sceptic leading our environment department. How can that be?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, that would be unfair, given that the coalition Government have signed up to ensuring that we have made the largest investment in the green sector during our tenure.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, en passant I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Ridley. If I may say so, the Minister is quite mistaken in suggesting that the alternatives are either decarbonisation or doing nothing. The IPCC report says very clearly, first, that climate change is far less serious than other changes affecting the world at present and, secondly, that the most sensible response is adaptation, something that, as my noble friend said, I have been advocating for the past six years.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, if my noble friend had listened to my original Answer, he would have heard that it was about adaptation and mitigation. They both work hand in hand, rather than either/or.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend expressed appreciation for the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. Would she like to take this opportunity to say how much we appreciate the enormously hard work undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and his committee?
Baroness Verma
Absolutely, my Lords. In this House we have experts from both sides of the argument, which is why it is crucial that when debates take place we hear and challenge both sides when we think that there is a challenge to be made.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, would it conceivably help if the Minister could persuade some of the deniers to go down to the West Country and the Levels to help with the dredging and digging?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, what we have witnessed is a severe weather event. What we need to do is to have mitigation systems in place to ensure that those local residents do not have to suffer again as they have done.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Ketamine etc.) (Amendment) Order 2014
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the draft Order laid before the House on 5 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 31 March.
Immigration Bill
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, before we consider this legislation, perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House or the government Chief Whip can explain why we are taking government legislation on a Thursday when we have been given four weeks for Easter and we will not be sitting for a week in which the House of Commons is sitting. Will she confirm that Prorogation will not take place until 21 May, as already announced, and not earlier as rumoured? This House is not here just to consider government legislation; it is here to debate the issues of the day and to hold the Government to account.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes—I will get the pronunciation of his name right in the end. I beg his pardon; as he knows, I have been very punctilious in persuading others of the difference between Faulks, Foulkes and Fookes. The noble Lord raises several questions. First of all, he has been a Member of the House for a very long while. He will therefore know that the Companion sets out very clearly that, from the end of January, Thursdays are used for government business.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
So it is of course a time when the Thursday debates come to an end. I have been extremely generous, as the House knows, in giving up government time on Thursdays to have debates. We have had more debates this Session than in any other in living memory. That has been welcomed by this House. On this occasion, we have legislation today at the express request of the opposition Front Bench and it is to accommodate that request that I have enabled legislation today and ensured that there will be no legislation next Wednesday, when debates will take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to Prorogation. He will also know that it is a long-standing practice in Parliament that the Prorogation date is not announced until government business has been secured. Therefore, I am afraid that I have to say gently to him that he is wrong to say that the Prorogation date has been announced by anyone—certainly not by me. I am always most cautious to keep to the conventions and the rules of this House. I ask the noble Lord to exercise his patience a little bit longer until I am able to give him accurate information.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not wish to prolong this. Of course, the noble Baroness the Chief Whip is absolutely right about business on Thursdays—that is the norm and I completely accept that. However, there is some discontent on all Benches in this House about the fact that our recesses are prolonged this year, which does not enable this House to hold the Government to account as we would see fit. I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I feel it necessary to make that point because it is our duty as a legislative House to hold this Government and any other Government to account.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition says that she does not want to extend the debate—that is a little ironic. I remind her that, as she is aware from discussions earlier this week, we were able to demonstrate that the number of weeks on recess has been consistent over the past three or four years. There is just one issue about the Scottish referendum, which is an unusual matter, and that has perhaps changed the timing. I do not have control over Easter or Whitsun. There is a perception perhaps held by some that there are more recesses than at other times. The figures simply do not bear that out. I suggest that the House is eager to progress with the work that it does well—the scrutiny of legislation—and I know that my noble friend Lord Taylor is keen that the House should address the matters of the Immigration Bill.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
“Exemption to charges under Part 3
No restrictions on access to tenancies or charges for services under this Part shall apply to persons—(a) holding Tier 4 (General) visas sponsored by a recognised higher education institution, or(b) holding Tier 2 visas and registered in full-time undergraduate or postgraduate study at a recognised higher education institution.”
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, this is the fourth occasion in recent weeks that the House has debated the cumulative negative impact that the Government’s immigration policy is already having, and is set in future to have, on the higher education sector, one of Britain’s most buoyant and valuable assets. Amendment 23 is designed to avoid that negative impact.
First, I will say a word or two about detail. I and my co-sponsors have not moved, as we did at the Committee stage, to exempt undergraduates and postgraduates from the streamlined appeals procedure. We listened to the arguments advanced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in Committee and concluded that the arguments for and against the new procedures were sufficiently well balanced, so far as students were concerned, to justify reluctant acceptance. We have also removed from the scope of the carve-out proposed in our current amendment the issues of bank accounts and driving licences to meet the points raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.
I shall say a word now—I hope a final word—about the ways statistics on migrants are compiled in this country and then submitted to the UN, an issue highlighted again this week by the publication of the extremely worrying figures from the Higher Education Funding Council for England which demonstrated, yet again, that the optimism expressed by the Minister in previous debates was a bit wide of the mark. As the noble Lord said in his very welcome letter of 24 February, these statistics are already, since last year, disaggregated so that students can be distinguished from other migrants, even though the net migration figures are re-aggregated for the purposes of submission to the UN. However, we are not talking about the way in which the Office for National Statistics compiles statistics. We are talking about the public policy implications in our immigration policy for this category, which is already recognised, as I have said, as being distinct. On that, we are proposing an approach which has been vigorously promoted for several years by six Select Committees of both Houses.
I very much welcome what the report of the noble Lord, Lord Howell Guildford, on UK soft power had to say, which was identical to what was said by the other five committees which had already reported. This view has been supported by members of all three main parties and of none: quite simply, that we should remove full-time undergraduate and postgraduate students from the public policy impact of the UK’s immigration policy. That is what our main competitors—the US, Canada and Australia—are already doing. Doing that in the context of the Bill, as my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf made clear in the Committee stage debate, would send the most powerful message possible around the world that we want our higher education sector to be open to all who are qualified to benefit from it, without any new obstacles or disincentives being put in their way.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, as one of the co-sponsors of this amendment, I will add a few further thoughts to the ones so ably mentioned by my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I completely bear him out that the history of higher education in this country for overseas students is one of the most remarkable success stories of any country in the world. For the past 20 or 30 years, we have maintained an astonishing magnetic appeal to young men and women coming from other countries, both within the European Union and far beyond it, to a greater extent than any other country in the world—although recently the United States has moved into first place in the league table of such countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out that, sadly, the United Kingdom has lost some momentum in attracting overseas students, and I will say a few words about that in a moment. First, I thank the Minister for the immense amount of work that he has done, his willingness to have meetings day after day and the huge amount of effort that he has put into them. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that nothing would give us greater pleasure than to receive a response that would enable us not to proceed further with this amendment. However, there are still substantial questions out there to be answered.
I will therefore begin by saying that one of the troubling aspects of this situation, which is a relatively new one, is that in the past couple of years the standing of the United Kingdom as regards its acceptability to overseas students has been quite substantially damaged. As an example I will give the House the benefit of what the National Union of Students said about the extent to which overseas students see us as a welcome and welcoming country. It conducted a substantial survey of some 18,000 people in early January of this year and found that 51% of undergraduates from overseas—just over half—said that they had not found the United Kingdom a welcoming place in which to study. In some ways even more troubling is that, among postgraduates who have a degree and are now staying in the country particularly with a view to working to fund the completion of their qualifications, the number was as high as 66%. Two-thirds of postgraduates who responded to the survey said that they had not found Britain a welcoming country in which to study. That is substantially different from figures in earlier surveys, which showed that the United Kingdom was rated very highly as regards the welcome it extended to overseas students.
I will add two other rather hard things. First, many billions of pounds—the estimate is about £3.5 billion—have come into this country as the result of payments made by students to universities for the studies that they have made. Perhaps at least as significant in that context is that the attitude of postgraduates to work-study arrangements that are made is increasingly negative. Our work-study arrangements are now less generous than those of other countries such as Canada, Australia and the United States. I will give a figure for that shortly, but before I do so I will add one crucial fact.
I was for three years of my life the Minister for Education and Science. One thing that is not sufficiently recognised in this country is the extraordinary contribution made by postgraduates and post-doctoral overseas students to the remarkable scientific achievements of this country. In many cases scientific teams are heavily dependent on attracting outstanding young men and women from abroad to take part in our research teams, primarily directed at science and medicine. I could give many examples, but I will give just a couple. The remarkable achievements in connection with graphene in the past couple of years, which led to no less than a Nobel Prize, were the outcome of the work of mixed teams of our own people and people from overseas, and that was a very remarkable achievement.
I can give another remarkable achievement, in this case from the University of East Anglia, where a former student who became a postgraduate and continued to work in the field of medicine established that at least one of the regularly prescribed pharmaceutical products designed to deal with diabetes was in fact the source of more frequent heart attacks among diabetes patients than among people of the same age group. That gentleman made a huge contribution by revealing this in detailed scientific papers, as a result of which that particular pharmaceutical product has now been withdrawn and the effect it had on heart attacks among diabetic patients has ceased.
A third example is the remarkable building up of a huge history of China by a mixed team of people, in this case in the humanities, which shows in detail the way in which China has developed, the sources of its growth and the sources of its political difficulties right up to the present time. I will not go on, but any Member of this House who wants more detailed information will find an extensive list of the achievements by postgraduates from overseas, together with British graduates and post-doctoral students, which shows how important that group is.
I will say right away, therefore, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we are very pleased that the Minister has addressed the very difficult question of landlords and tenancies and the question of accommodation. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, gratitude for the steps that the Minister has taken, which have been achieved with a great deal of hard work, innovation and determination to get an answer. We are truly grateful for that and, like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I hope that he will be able to confirm this morning that there has been an adequate extension of the plan for undergraduates to postgraduate and post-doctoral students.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, as a co-sponsor of this amendment, I too add my support to the pleas made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. There is no need at this point to further persuade the House of the enormous benefits that international students attending our universities bring to their universities, their local areas and the country at large. To focus minds, I will present one fact: it was announced today in a report by Universities UK that the total economic contribution to the UK made by higher education exports in 2011-12 was £10.71 billion. To put that in perspective, the House of Commons Library estimated the economic contribution of the entire motor vehicle manufacturing industry at £10.4 billion. That is the scale of the industry we are discussing today.
I think that the Minister and the Government accept that analysis and generally want to encourage students from across the world to study here, which is to be welcomed. But the Government need to be particularly careful that these welcoming messages are not undermined by changes to the visa system that could be perceived as being unwelcoming towards international students. The survey conducted by the NUS, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, highlights some worrying trends about the way the immigration system is perceived by the very people the Government want to attract.
Some of the measures in Part 3 have the potential to add to that perception. That is why I and other noble Lords tabled our amendment to remove students from these measures and to send a clear signal to current and potential students that they are welcome in the UK. While the Government are introducing new barriers to potential international students, reassurances overseas that the UK is open for business may ring a little hollow.
I have talked of perception and presentation because these are very real concerns when it comes to attracting international students and staff to the UK. However, there are a number of more practical concerns about the impact these measures could have on both students and staff. I want to follow on from the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in introducing the amendment, all of which I support. Since this amendment was debated in Committee, the Minister has gone out of his way to provide detail on some of the measures in this part of the Bill, so I hope he will forgive me if I ask him to repeat and clarify some of these points now.
First, on the checks that landlords will be required to carry out before offering tenancy agreements, we should remember that many students coming to the UK will be moving out of their parents’ home, let alone their own country, for the first time. Assuming that the Minister’s Amendments 26 to 29 are accepted, many international students will live in accommodation that is exempted from the Bill, which is helpful. I am glad that the Government agree that the previous exemption failed to capture many students.
However, some students and, of course, the vast majority of international staff will still be moving into property in the private rental sector which is not exempted by the Bill. It is essential that students are able to secure accommodation in good time before their arrival in the UK. Similarly, academic staff at universities will want to make sure that they and their families have a roof over their head before they move here.
Tier 4 student visas can be applied for only a maximum of three months before the date of travel, so they are often received very close to the date that the student arrives in the UK. Students must be able to make at least conditional arrangements before they receive their visas. Will the Minister clarify that it will be legal and proper for landlords to enter into conditional arrangements with potential tenants who do not at the time of entering into that conditional agreement have a relevant visa and that this will be clearly communicated in any official guidance issued?
Secondly, only those without settlement rights will have to pay the NHS surcharge. Time spent on a tier 4 student visa does not count towards residency requirements for settlement rights. As other noble Lords have said, the Bill could result in the deeply iniquitous situation that an economic migrant who is later granted settlement may have to pay the charge for five years but a student who finds work and stays on here may have to pay for far longer—as long as 12 years in a row—if they studied at both undergraduate and postgraduate level.
With the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I ask: will the Minister commit to addressing this unfairness when the secondary legislation is drafted? It is easily fixable by, say, limiting to five the number of years for which a person would have to pay the charge. There is provision in the Bill to at least have these charges applied fairly. Will the Minister commit to doing so?
I cannot end without supporting the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on behalf of postgraduate students. Those with a family are going to be hit really hard by the health charges. One has only to think of the number of our postgraduate courses that survive only because of the number of international students that we are able to attract to see the dangers if large numbers should fall.
I remain concerned that this Bill is part of a wider trend of immigration policy that could mean that the UK fails to capitalise on the extraordinary potential of its higher education sector. Even if the Minister is unable to commit to reversing this trend this afternoon, I hope that he will address at least some of the practical issues that I have highlighted today.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I listened with great interest to the debate on this amendment in Committee on 10 March. Unfortunately, I was unable to stay for all of it, although I read it carefully in Hansard, and so was not able to take part, but I would like to make a brief contribution today.
Winding up for the Opposition on that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara—that demon of the squash court, as he keeps saying—had some fun at the expense of my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, when he said:
“I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, on putting his head above the parapet. Although I think he picked up some of the arguments, I did not think his heart was entirely in it”.—[Official Report, 10/3/14; cols. 1607-08.]
I intend to put my head above the parapet this afternoon, and I have to say that my heart is entirely in it.
Overseas students make an exceptionally valuable contribution that enriches our university life, but as I shall explain, I have concerns about scale, about leakage at the end of courses, and various consequent impacts on our settled population. Further, I think the extent of the beneficial impacts, adduced by various briefings we have had, are somewhat overstated.
I begin by following my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby in talking about the briefings we have had, some of which have been quite cataclysmic in tone. They suffer, in certain instances, from mixing absolute numbers and percentages. It is perfectly possible to have an increasing absolute number and a declining percentage. Indeed, if one looks at market share, as some of the briefings do, it is almost certain that the UK will have a declining market share in an era when global university education is rising rapidly in parallel with people in the UK wanting to study overseas. In addition, as the UK has a historically high level of overseas students and a relatively small population in world terms, our market share is almost certainly bound to be declining.
More importantly, there have been attempts, in my view, to ascribe all the changes in student numbers to the proposals that we are discussing in this Bill. This is fanciful. There is a host of other reasons that influence people’s decisions on where to study—of those, notably, cost. Indeed, there was an article in the Times yesterday with a headline that suggested changes in the system were deterring students, but when you got into the meat of the article it was actually about cost. The piece mentioned cost only in sterling or Euro terms, failing to take into account the other great part of the cost—changes in the exchange rate. A year ago $1.50 bought you £1; today you need $1.66, so if you are a dollar-based student you are facing an increase of 10% in the costs of studying here in the UK. As regards India, which is an even more important market, as many noble Lords have said, a year ago 83 rupees bought you £1; today you need 100—a 20% increase in costs to a student from India.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I wonder whether he does not find it a trifle ironical that he is speaking from the Benches of a Government who have exhorted the country, correctly in my view, to succeed in what is called the global race, and above all to maximise the industries and services that we produce best. He has developed an extremely elaborate argument for saying that we must embrace declinism in the higher education sector and we must accept that it is not in our interest to go on growing this potentially extremely valuable resource. Is it not a bit contrary to government policy that one industry in this country should be treated as something that can be tripped up and hampered at every stage while all the others are being encouraged to develop?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I obviously have not made myself clear. I hope that I have made it clear that I am not attacking foreign students because I think that they have an important role to play. I said that, first, the Government’s proposals are not the key determinant of why people come to study here. The key determinant is the overall cost and, in particular, the cost in the currency of the country of origin of the student in question. Secondly, I question—I do not know—that the long-term economic benefits which have been adduced to having students here are not as great as they might be.
Lord Winston (Lab)
The noble Lord has talked about costs. Does he not agree that one of the great advantages of having overseas students in this country is the fact that they bring down the costs for internal students reading medicine and engineering in particular? Otherwise, our universities would have to charge them much more.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
The noble Lord is right, but if what UK universities are saying is that they want to bring foreign students here to subsidise our university education system, that would be a clearer argument than the rather lofty arguments we hear that our duty is to do this because of our benefit to the world and because it is actually to our long-term advantage. If the noble Lord is saying that it is really all about money in the short term, fine—let us say that and be clear about it. I understand that as an argument and I am perfectly happy to accept its value.
Perhaps I may conclude. I repeat again for the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we should attract students to study here, but we need to do so with realistic aims in mind. In our very proper wish to do right by the world, we should not overlook the needs and indeed the rights of our settled population. That is why in my view the Government are right to take these measured steps. They are steps that I believe, and which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, have acknowledged, have become more measured as the Government have responded to comments and criticisms as laid out in my noble friend’s letters of 12 March and 1 April. That is why I will be supporting the Government if the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, decides to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will not feel that he has to test the opinion of the House, but I can imagine that he has been to some degree sorely provoked to do so by the remarks of my noble friend. That is because there did seem to be an inherent contradiction in them. On the one hand he protests—I do not doubt his integrity for half a second—that he wishes to see foreign students come here in great numbers, while on the other he seems to be arguing that we should not push it too far.
I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee when I supported the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, but I will briefly refer to one thing that I touched on then. I have the honour of being a member of the senior common room at St Antony’s College, Oxford. As I told noble Lords last time, we have students from 73 countries there at the moment. It is an extraordinarily important centre for postgraduate education—not just in Oxford, not just in England, but in Europe and, indeed, the world. From all over the world students come. In common with students at other colleges and universities, many of them go back and play leading roles in their countries. Some stay and play leading roles in ours. Where would we be in medical science and many other disciplines if some of them had not stayed? I hate to think how many consultants there would be in some of our hospitals—excellent consultants—if it were not for the fact that foreign students had come here, been taught—no doubt inspirationally—by people such as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and had stayed. We are protecting ourselves, as well as our image as a nation, if we encourage without inhibition and without qualification.
I was very taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, both in Committee and today, and by what my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby said. However, I have also been extremely impressed by the diligent interest that my noble friend Lord Taylor has taken in these matters. He clearly listened carefully to the arguments advanced in Committee and has tabled a number of amendments today that will go a fair way towards meeting many of the concerns that were expressed in Committee. I thank him for that, and for the infinite patience and trouble that he has taken in talking to me and others, and in trying to recognise where we are coming from.
A word that cropped up many times in our first debate was “perception”, and it has been touched on again today. How are we perceived? Where I take slight issue, not with my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby but with the National Union of Students’ report from which she quoted, is that my anecdotal evidence from St Antony’s, Hull, Lincoln and other universities with which I have a connection would not bear that out. Most of the foreign students to whom I have talked have always said that they feel extremely welcome here—and proud to be here. They are anxious to stay to complete their studies, and most of them are anxious to return to play a leading part in their countries or localities when they go back. The National Union of Students’ statistics, which of course I am not in a position to challenge, clearly depend upon the questions that were asked. I just wonder what questions were asked.
However, I am concerned not with the past or the present so much as the future. It is clear from the article from which my noble friend Lord Hodgson quoted, and from other reports in recent months, that there is a falling off in the number of students coming from certain countries. Of course my noble friend Lord Hodgson is entirely right to say that there are a variety of causes and reasons for this. Of course he is right to say that cost is a factor, but it is not by any means the only factor. What we have to be absolutely sure of is that students coming, or contemplating coming, from other countries still keep the United Kingdom very much at the top of their wish list. From talking to Professor Margaret MacMillan, the Warden of St Antony’s, who herself is a distinguished Canadian historian, it is clear that Canada and the USA are more attractive to many students who would hitherto have put the United Kingdom at the top of their list. I am concerned about that.
I very much hope that when the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, as of course it will, we will have been able to inject amendments into it that will make it very clear that, in seeking to tighten up our immigration policy, we are not in any way setting our face against students. The Prime Minister himself has said on many occasions that foreign students are welcome here without any cap on numbers. I welcome that. I am sure there is not a single Member of your Lordships’ House who does not welcome that. But it is important that we prove that that is what we mean by the contents of the legislation that we pass.
I look forward very much to what my noble friend the Minister will say when he replies. I hope and believe that he will be able to give the sort of assurances that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, sought in his speech. I hope that the House will be united in backing his amendment, secure in the knowledge that, supplemented by future regulations, the situation will be as we would wish it to be: namely, that any potential student, be he or she in India, any part of the African continent or anywhere else for that matter, will feel that not only are the doors indeed open but that the “Welcome” sign is above them.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (CB)
My Lords, in support of the excellent and measured speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and of the other signatories to this amendment, I offer not a speech but a quotation. It runs as follows:
“One of the biggest categories of ‘immigrants’ is overseas students—176,000 last year, over a third of the total. They are not immigrants but they are defined as such because they are here for more than a year … There has recently been a crackdown on the undoubted abuse of visas by some private colleges but the consequence of tightening the rules has been to drive away bona fide students, especially from India, to the US, Canada and Australia. Universities, and Britain, are poorer as a result”.
These are the words of the member of the Cabinet who runs the department that is responsible for universities: Vince Cable. They are not private; they were in the Evening Standard about two weeks ago. I quote them not to make mischief for the coalition Government, because I believe that the country has benefited from the strength of coalition government, but to say that here at the heart of government, the individual responsible for universities and their impact on this country is clearly at odds with what is happening in legislation today. I think that he is right and that his words bear repeating, which is why I happily support the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and his colleagues.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am particularly pleased to follow a reference to my right honourable friend Vince Cable, who has been very energetic in spelling out the value, if I can put it this way, as an import and as an export, of overseas students. I have been worried, and have said so publicly, about the use of the phrase “the brightest and the best” in immigration policy, but I have to say that I did not read my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby as wanting to cream off the brightest and the best; I do not think that was where she was going.
As has been said, we have a very good story to tell. We are curiously inept in some parts of the system at telling it. The word “perception” has been used, rightly, by a number of noble Lords. We should not get stuck on the overall immigration numbers without disaggregation, but I do not want to repeat all the arguments that I and other noble Lords have made.
I have just a couple of comments on this. I doubt that many people, even in this building, know that the Budget added to the funding of the Education is GREAT campaign, which seeks to attract international students to the UK, and that the number of Chevening scholarships supporting students from developing countries who come here to study is being tripled. I will let those two facts speak for themselves, and I hope they will add a little to the perception.
On tenancies I am very much with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and others. I want to make use of this Report stage to come back to some rather focused questions on those amendments.
As I understand it, the health levy or surcharge really is an integral part of the Bill. As the Minister will remind us, in absolute terms it is competitive, and I say that it is very good value insurance. Some anomalies and issues need to be followed up, and others have drawn attention to these. I am reassured by the fact that secondary legislation will, I hope, deal with the detail.
I welcome the student tenancy amendments which my noble friend the Minister proposes but, if I may, I will seek a little more assurance. I was concerned about the numbers and types of properties that students use as accommodation. Given the time, I will try to summarise on the hoof the understanding I have gained from Universities UK. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me. It is important to say that about a quarter of international students are likely to still be living in accommodation which is not within the categories specifically defined so far. The Minister has been very generous with his time in meetings and in correspondence, and he foreshadowed the amendment to the halls of residence test at the previous stage. I would have liked to have seen an exemption which focused on the people—the students—rather than on the property.
I am concerned about the term “nominated”, as are other noble Lords. I hope that my noble friend might be able to say that, although this term is used rather differently in other contexts, here it really amounts to “accredited”. I am sure that the Minister will spell out in his reply that there will be guidance, and there will be consultation on the guidance. Perhaps he might also state that, as well as the accommodation owned by a relevant institution, the halls of residence and the nomination for what we might understand to be a private tenancy, where a landlord is approached by a student and none of those three situations is in place, the landlord can in effect obtain the nomination from the university and come within that exemption.
I, too, am concerned about postgraduates and doctoral students, and I looked at the definitions brought into the Bill from the Local Government Finance Act 2012. I hope that my noble friend will be able to confirm that postgraduates and doctoral students fall within the definitions in that legislation. I hope he may also be able to set out the balance between studying and teaching within the work done by, let us say, a postgraduate student, many of whom also teach, that the Government will expect to see in order for the exemption to apply. I assume that research is regarded as study.
I hope—well, I assume—that the relevant orders following from the Bill will be made by the Home Secretary, because many Secretaries of State come within this whole picture. I have probably taken enough time, and the Minister is aware of my concerns. He looked slightly puzzled at my last comment, but I was thinking of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who makes the order about who is a student. It is a bit of a jigsaw.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I sense that the House wishes to come to a decision, so I shall be extremely brief in making a couple of points. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is always so reassuring and we think that he is going to bridge the gap which exists between the proponents of the amendment and the Government, but I fear that this is not the case. This is a serious disagreement.
I shall speak mainly about higher educational institutions in the widest sense. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that she was concerned about the welcome that we are giving to students—the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, reiterated that. We used to talk about a climate of disbelief in the Home Office a few years ago; now, I think that there is a climate of frustration, interference with and even prejudice against what I might call the lower order of colleges of education and those which are capable of offering places to bogus students, who have rightly to be returned. I am very concerned about the climate in this society that we have.
That gives me, however, an opportunity to say that the Home Office recognises its mistakes. It can correct its mistakes. I had an example only last week where a college in south London with five years of trusted sponsor status, which I have visited, was quite unfairly threatened with the loss of its licence through an association with one of these lower orders of bogus college. It recognised the mistake in the end, but I want to put over that it is a tough environment out there at the moment if you are one of those colleges. Many immigration officers are being put in positions of making educational decisions. I support the amendment; I hope that my noble friend will move it to a Division. The remarks of my noble friend Lord Sutherland were very timely, because this is after all a disagreement within the coalition. It was very welcome to hear the voice of Vince Cable. I am sure that he agrees, as does the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the disaggregation of numbers, although it is not the subject of this amendment, has become almost a separate issue which we should come back to.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. UK universities have worked tirelessly over the years to attract international students, including Exeter University, of which I am the chancellor so I declare an interest. We cannot sustain the level of financial support that universities require and will continue to require without international student support. We also benefit from those students’ academic and cultural contribution. Our country gains so much from these resources. Exeter benefits greatly from its international students, not just financially but also, because of where geographically we are placed, from the culturally diverse, rich mix that such students bring.
I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on all the concessions that he has made after hearing the concerns that many noble Lords have expressed. I thank him, too, for all the meetings that he has granted us. I also invite him to consider further the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which would make a difference to the perception that those abroad have of us as a welcoming nation to international students.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very good debate which, with one exception, has focused narrowly on the questions being posed in the amendments that we are considering. Of course, we have still to hear from the Minister on his amendments and I am sure that a lot is riding on them. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was very kind to refer to our shared interest in squash. I am a little sad that we did not encounter one another on the squash court, because, given his positioning of putting his head well above the parapet and his heart very much in his game, I think that he would have been easy prey, certainly to be beaten by fair means. But if I was struggling, I think that I would have been able to lop his head off quite easily. In what was effectively a Second Reading speech, it was not at all clear which parts of the amendments the noble Lord was supporting or not supporting. I think that we missed that, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, put it very nicely when he explained what he felt about that.
Other than that, we have focused hard on the issues relating to students. The quotation given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, should be very much in our thinking as we look at these issues. There is no doubt that we are talking here about perceptions. We are talking about whether, in aggregate, the work that the Government are doing through the Bill complements, supports or destroys the currently very effective system of higher education that we have in this country in relation to overseas entrants to and users of it—although the context is not that good given the row that there has been in the past couple of weeks about what is happening to the system of higher education as a whole, which I suspect has a long way to go.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for his thoughtful contribution to the debate. I hope I can address the issues he has raised. We have had a good debate. We always have good debates on this subject. The House is not always in agreement with the Government’s position on issues, but I think we have come closer together as a result of the debate, the provisions of the Bill and the amendments that I have been able to bring forward today.
I do not want to sound boring, but I will reiterate the mantra that the Government’s objective is to attract the brightest and the best. There is no limit on numbers. We have to say that because it puts right at the top of the page what the Government’s policy is. We will go on, I hope, as we discuss this matter, and as I answer noble Lords’ questions, to demonstrate that the proposals in the Bill are not designed to dilute in any way that central policy.
We have had an interesting debate. I have had an interesting debate going on behind me between my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Cormack. I know that they earnestly believe in the importance of the international student sector. I share that belief. It is a tribute to our education system and the talent of individual students who come here that we benefit enormously through our university sector. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby gave examples of outstanding academics who have benefited the world of knowledge and the world of medicine by their presence here in this country. They serve as exemplars of what our academic world is able to achieve. She has given me considerable detail which I am sure she will make available to other noble Lords should they wish to see it.
I turn to the Bill and to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my own government amendments. In relation to tenancies, the Bill disqualifies individuals from renting property if they do not have leave to be here. Students will be able to evidence their immigration status simply by showing their biometric residence permits or visas to potential landlords. That is a simple and straightforward check. The Government have nonetheless given this issue further thought. As a result of our debates at Second Reading and in Committee, and as a result of meetings we have had outside this House, we have tabled amendments exempting student accommodation which is owned or managed by a higher education institution, all halls of residence, and any arrangement where the student has been nominated for the accommodation by their educational institution. I just want to emphasise that while the word “nominate” is something that those of us who have political lives associate with nomination papers and so on, nominating is just the naming of an individual as being a student at a higher education institution. That is all it is. It does not necessarily involve the university itself in any contract with the landlord or any renting arrangements that the student may be entering into. It is a form of vouching for the genuineness of the student’s immigration status. That is all. I hope that I have been able to express that in the plain terms that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked for. I say further, and this is important too, that it applies to undergraduates— I think that would be understood—and also to postgraduates and to those completing their doctoral theses, so that all those who this House would consider to be students in the broadest definition of the term are included within this embrace.
The noble Lord raised three points that he wanted me to deal with. The first was the business of whether this extended to graduates. I have confirmed that that is indeed the case. Secondly, he asked whether this genuinely exempts the landlord. Yes, indeed; as long as he is satisfied by the nomination, then he has no need to conduct any further checks. If I may say so, this is rather analogous to the position of a person in a tied cottage. It has nothing to do with this part of the Bill but it is an interesting analogy in the sense that the person being employed can be vouched for and the landlord will have done the check on their employment in exactly the same way as the university will have done one on the engagement of the individual with the university itself. There is no contractual obligation on the university in respect of the tenancy that the individual student may be entering into. It is important to emphasise that as well. There is engagement, of course, but there is no contractual obligation.
Where a landlord wishes to rent to a student and does not want to check their immigration status documents, for whatever reason, they may make inquiries with the student’s educational institution and obtain this nomination. Nomination will be simply a confirmation of the student’s status, something that educational institutions already have to provide to students in order to prove exemption from the council tax. A suggestion made by my noble friend Lady Manzoor led us to explore this possibility. The term “nominate” is a broad exemption and it will allow higher education institutions to confirm that the student is exempt without being prescriptive about the form that this should take.
These government amendments will mean that landlords need not conduct an immigration status check as the educational institution will already have done so. The amendment removes the large majority of students from the scope of the landlords scheme. I also reassure noble Lords that the Government intend to make provision within the code of practice to allow landlords to agree a tenancy in principle with the students who have not yet arrived in the UK, allowing them to undertake a check of relevant documentation immediately before the student takes up occupation. In other words, it is possible for these arrangements to be made in advance of the student actually taking up their place at the university. A number of noble Lords had expressed concern on that point.
Perhaps I may park the landlord provisions and go on to talk about the health service surcharge—
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
Before the noble Lord does that, might I clarify whether what he is saying is in response to the point I made about a potential tenant entering into a conditional arrangement with a landlord? Is it legal and proper for the landlord to enter into that arrangement even though at that point, because of the time involved and so on, the potential tenant has not actually got their visa?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Yes, absolutely: that is the case. It is up to the landlord to decide whether they want to enter into a conditional arrangement. In university towns this is a frequent enough experience, is it not? They can check the nomination, which may say that the person has a conditional place at the university. That can be checked immediately the undergraduate or postgraduate arrives to take up the accommodation. We do not want to make this difficult. We want to make universities feel that this will help them as well as the students at their university.
I turn to the health surcharge—there are a number of landlord issues I might come back to but I want to try to deal with this as far as I can in order. I urge noble Lords to bear in mind that international students cost the NHS around £430 million a year and more than £700 a head. The NHS has limited funding and cannot sustain this if it is unsupported by those who use that service. The surcharge for students is just £150 a year. It is a very good deal. It is a fraction of the true cost to the NHS and just 1% of the cost of studying in the UK. There is no reason to believe that the surcharge will deter students from coming to the UK because it is set well below the price students pay for health insurance in our competitor countries.
I accept that international students contribute significantly to our economy, but such contributions do not exempt students from health charges in our competitor countries and there is no reason why they should do so here. Noble Lords will understand our reasoning in that regard. The NHS provides quality care to international students and their dependants for a wide range of health issues. I will speak more on the NHS services that international students have used, if noble Lords wish.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I think the whole House recognises that £150 is a not unreasonable figure. However, there is a very specific and limited case for those in post-doctoral or postgraduate positions who bring their dependants with them. At that point the continuation of the charge, especially if somebody has taken work that enables them to pay national insurance and taxation, begins to feel much more like a burden than like a benefit. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Indeed. My noble friend and I have discussed this in meetings. I take the point. It was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, as well. I think he and other noble Lords understood that there will be secondary legislation that will define these issues. I am aware of the concerns expressed by noble Lords in this respect. My noble friend Lady Hamwee made the same point about the length of time that some individuals may pay the surcharge. I do not consider this a serious problem but I commit to considering it carefully before bringing forward the affirmative resolution order.
A number of other mattes were raised. My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby asked about changes to work-study visas. We do not have any figures on this but she is quite right to point out that we have tried to facilitate this, just as through the graduate scheme we have tried to facilitate higher education and have worked with institutions.
She asked about slowness in the visa system. In fact, 93% of administrative reviews for overseas students—these applications are made overseas—are made within 28 days, so it is quite speedy. That is one reason we are looking to use the method of administrative review more generally in this respect.
I hope that I have satisfied the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, about the breadth of the accommodation amendment. Any undergraduate who chooses to use that facility by gaining a nomination from the university will get the accommodation that they need, and it is quite proper to take up a place in advance.
I was asked by a number of noble Lords about our general approach to working with universities. We have been working at ways to promote this country to students from overseas. It is something in which I believe, and I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords that with the considerable sums now being put to one side through the Budget to promote our education facilities to overseas students we have a good offer in place.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was very keen that the Government should demonstrate unity of purpose on this issue. I hope I have said nothing that discourages him from believing that we have a unity of purpose on this issue. I very much appreciate the work that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, does, in particular with the college in south London. He and I have had meetings on it. I know he had a meeting with officials last week, trying to reconcile them to the arrangements. This is not an easy area but we want to work with this sector.
I did not have the benefit of a university education. I went to work at 17 and it has taught me that there are huge benefits in university education. I believe in it passionately. I do not want to see other people denied the opportunities that our university sector provides. I hope that I have demonstrated my wish to engage with the sector and give it confidence that there should be no reason why a properly constructed immigration policy would be incompatible with our policy objective of encouraging the brightest and the best to come and study at our excellent universities. I hope, in the light of these points, that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who in Committee and on Report supported the amendments put down in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, whose absence today is entirely due to being in Athens on the business of the House.
I have drawn enormous comfort and support from the way in which each of the debates we have held has been lengthy, thoughtful and devoted entirely to the matter in hand. I contrast that with the fact that the other place, when it took this legislation, never actually got around to talking about students or higher education at all because they were so busy chasing Romanians and Bulgarians around the Chamber. That is perhaps a tribute to the way in which your Lordships’ House conducts its business. We do not miss out really important issues like that of students.
I have a brief comment—or perhaps two—on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. He raised the question of whether universities were aware and made enough of the fact that foreign students help them subsidise domestic students. All I can tell him is that if he talks to anyone in the higher education sector, of course they all know that perfectly well. They know that a number of courses, particularly STEM courses, would simply not be maintainable without overseas student enrolment. However, the noble Lord will recognise that if we are trying to recruit overseas students, this is not a major sales point. It is not terribly wise to go around the world saying, “You may think your fees are a bit on the high side—but don’t worry, they are going to support British students”. I hope he will understand that one has to treat that with a certain amount of care.
Of course, the noble Lord is right about the exchange rate having extreme importance. I can only offer him the advice that Miss Prism offers Cecily in “The Importance of Being Earnest”:
“The chapter on the Fall of the Rupee you may omit. It is somewhat too sensational”.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I understand exactly what the noble Lord says, and I understand about the sales pitch. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that I am not going to make another Second Reading speech, but we in this House have got ourselves into a position where we are talking about what the Government are saying about visas and about “curbs”: that was the word used. In fact, what it comes down to when you read the detail is that the checks and balances that the Government are proposing to ensure that there is some recovery of costs are not the key issue. The key issue is the overall cost of the education, particularly in the currency of the country from which the student comes.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Well, I think Miss Prism probably had it about right.
Having considered the possibilities, I was struck by the fact that all three Front Benches are opposed to the amendment. The Official Opposition’s description of the reasons for which they were opposed to it holds about as much water as a colander; but let us leave that to one side.
I thank the Minister for his extremely considerate response, for the work he has done in the past few weeks, particularly on the issue of student accommodation, to try to meet some of the concerns that have been expressed, and for the very clear way in which he has replied to questions I and the noble Baronesses, Lady Warwick, Lady Williams and Lady Hamwee, raised in today’s debate. I found some that of the things that he said really helpful. They are on the record and that is very valuable indeed.
Before closing, I will make one point that is outside the scope of this debate. Within the next year, all three main parties are going to write their manifestos for the next election. It would not surprise anyone, I imagine, that there will be a substantial section on immigration in every one of those manifestos, because it is a burning issue of the hour. I make a plea that when they write these manifesto chapters on immigration, they make it quite clear that in the next Parliament they will not treat overseas students as normal economic migrants in terms of the Government’s immigration policy: that they will reflect and that they will respect the specificity of the higher education sector. Frankly, I do not think that they will lose a single vote if they say that, but they will save themselves an awful lot of trouble in the next Parliament. I hope that that plea will be heard and, in any case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Housing Benefit (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2014
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:16 - Division on the Motion. - Ayes: 173 / Noes: 188 - Motion disagreed.
Baroness Sherlock
To move that this House regrets that the Housing Benefit (Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 are being introduced without Her Majesty’s Government’s full understanding of the numbers of those affected; regrets that confusion and uncertainty are being added to an already unjust policy; deplores that Her Majesty’s Government’s mishandling has resulted in households being unlawfully charged and further pushed into hardship; and regrets the likely disproportionate impact of the Regulations on the most vulnerable (SI 2014/212).
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, this Motion relates to an order brought forward by the Government to address a loophole that they have belatedly discovered in enacting what they call the social sector size criteria and everybody else calls the bedroom tax. The loophole means that people claiming housing benefit continuously for the same home since 1 January 1996 are exempt from the bedroom tax. It emerged recently, as noble Lords may remember from the discussion on a recent Urgent Question, that the group may be even wider as it may affect some people who have inherited this protection from a former tenant who enjoyed it.
People covered by this exemption have unlawfully had their housing benefit cut. When this matter was discussed in the other place, a number of examples of people affected were given. For example, there was a widower in Staffordshire suffering from mental health problems who had to find an extra £14 a week to stay in his home. There was a 56 year-old women from Rotherham with health-related problems who paid over £700 in additional rent, which we now know was unlawful. In Greater Manchester, a woman who cares for her granddaughter paid £200 extra in rent as a result of the bedroom tax, fell into arrears and was threatened with eviction from the home she has lived in for 26 years. Incidentally, Grandparents Plus notes that kinship carers like her are more likely to be affected by the bedroom tax, because they are older and more likely to have spare rooms, technically, because their children have grown up and moved on.
These people and many others like them are now due a rebate but, rather than apologise for the distress that they have been caused, the Government now want to apply the bedroom tax again to these people and thousands like them. Because local authorities in most cases do not have electronic records which go back to 1996, they are finding themselves having to waste time and money trawling through paper files looking for affected cases. Meanwhile, the Government have brought forward this order to close the loophole, despite having no idea how many people are affected by it.
The Opposition have tried very hard to find out how many people are affected by asking Ministers. On 13 January, the Employment Minister, Esther McVey, gave a Written Answer in the other place. She said simply:
“This information is not available”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/14; col. 449W.]
On the same day, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the other place that,
“the number is likely to be between 3,000 and 5,000”.—[ Official Report, Commons, 13/1/14; col. 577.]
The very next day, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, told this House that,
“the numbers involved in this anomaly are small and the amounts are modest”.—[Official Report, 14/1/14; col. 106.]
However, early reports coming from the ground suggested that the numbers could be rather higher than that. Therefore, under the Freedom of Information Act, the Opposition asked local authorities how many people they believed would be affected. The resulting figures already show that over 23,000 are likely to be affected, even though a third of councils have still to reply and many said that they could not give complete answers because they could not include housing association tenants. Not only is this a mess, but the Government seem to have no idea how many people are caught up in the mess.
We should not be surprised. The bedroom tax was a bad policy in the first place, incompetently executed, with the heaviest price being paid by the poorest and most vulnerable. More than 500,000 households have been hit. Two-thirds of those affected are disabled. Of those affected, 35,000 disabled people have had their homes specially adapted with, for example, wheelchair ramps, wider doors, stair lifts or accessible bathrooms. If they are forced to move, it is estimated that the cost of repeating those adaptations in new properties could reach £234 million.
Some 60,000 of those affected by the bedroom tax are carers. More than 200,000 families with children are affected. On average, people are paying an extra £14 a week—the equivalent of losing all of your child benefit for the second child. Most depressingly, so many of the problems predicted by noble Lords from all Benches during the passage of the Welfare Reform Act have come to pass. According to the National Housing Federation, on average two-thirds of tenants affected by the bedroom tax are currently in arrears; of those, three-quarters have seen their arrears increase since the bedroom tax came in. Of those tenants hit by the bedroom tax who are in arrears because they cannot make up the shortfall, 40% have been issued with a notice seeking possession.
The impact on landlords is also huge. Nearly three in five housing associations say that they have been affected by the bedroom tax either a great deal or a fair amount. That hides huge regional problems, as I know only too well. About 90% of housing associations operating mainly in the north-east and 80% in the north-west report that they have been significantly affected.
What a mess, and for what? What has been achieved by all this chaos and misery? Has the bedroom tax achieved its aims? Ministers have not been able to explain whether the policy is supposed to reduce overcrowding or to save money; it cannot do both. If tenants stay put and accept a cut in their benefits, the state saves money but no houses are freed up. If tenants are forced to move, no money is saved. The costings assumed that people would not move. During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill, when the matter was voted on in this House on Report on 14 December 2011, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, explained the Government’s position, saying:
“The introduction of size criteria into the social rented sector from April 2013 is essential to reduce housing benefit expenditure”.—[Official Report, 14/12/11; col. 1300.]
So it was indeed about savings. The Minister explained that it would save around £500 million per annum.
I wonder whether those savings really are materialising as Ministers had hoped. Last Friday, Esther McVey was asked on a BBC Radio 5 Live programme how much money the Government had saved through this policy. She began by saying:
“It was never all about saving money”.
The interviewer interrupted just to ask how much it would save. She came back to the question. The interviewer asked her repeatedly whether there would be savings and how much they would be but could not get an answer.
There is now a real risk that the bedroom tax will end up costing more than it saves. Research from the University of York suggests that the policy could save significantly less than the DWP predicted. The National Housing Federation has said that the savings claimed by the Government are “highly questionable”, partly because those forced to move to the private rented sector will end up costing more in housing benefits. Housing associations say that tens of millions of pounds are likely to be lost through the build-up of arrears. I ask the Minister today to tell the House precisely how much of that £500 million savings per annum has been realised in the first year of the bedroom tax. After taking into account the cost of discretionary housing payments, the cost to local authorities and social housing providers and the payment of higher housing benefits to those who had to move, what is the net saving to the public purse? If it was not about saving money, as Esther McVey has said, what was it about?
The Government have since changed tack and claimed that it is about tackling overcrowding or dealing with the waiting lists. They say that people need to be pushed to move out if they have spare rooms so that others can have their houses. At various times, noble Lords from all Benches have pointed out that, in fact, many of these are not spare rooms, and, even if they were, there were nowhere near enough spare smaller properties available in the areas hit by the bedroom tax. Now we know what has happened. A recent BBC investigation showed that, after the first year, just 6% of tenants have moved.
This entire episode should shame this Government. Half a million people have been affected, most of them disabled, losing an average £14 a week from their already meagre incomes. Instead of bringing forward an order to make the bedroom tax apply to up to 40,000 more households, the Government should announce today that they will scrap this unfair, cruel and unpopular tax. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Sherlock for securing this debate. Of all the Government’s reforms to welfare, it is hard to find another more cruel, more callous and more mean-spirited than the bedroom tax. The policy was dreamt up by people who have no need for housing benefit themselves and probably do not even know anybody who depends on it. While it may make sense in theory, in practice it is having a devastating effect on the lives of vulnerable people. Additionally, the very ideas and theory behind the policy are, I believe, wicked and wrong. Ministers have stressed that the policy is designed to fix a broken system of housing benefit and encourage behavioural change among recipients of housing benefit. This is sheer nonsense. The system is broken, though not because of the behaviour of those who use it; the cause is the housing stock itself. In England, there are 180,000 tenants underoccupying two-bedroom homes but only 85,000 smaller homes available.
The Catholic charity Caritas Diocese of Salford has been working with Michelle. She has three children and lives in a three-bedroom home. Originally she cared for her brother, who has now moved into supported accommodation. Her 13 year-old daughter now uses the so-called spare room. Michelle is trying for a home swap, looking for a two-bedroom home, but nothing is available. The £12 she loses each week means that she now regularly resorts to food banks. This is the reality of the bedroom tax. The only economy left for families to make is on food. When that cannot be done, they have to resort to food banks. In Merseyside, social landlords have referred 553 tenants to food banks.
The cost of the bedroom tax is horrific, but the attitude that it displays towards social housing is also wrong. No longer can people regard where they live as their homes. Housing benefit and social housing appear to be something that the Government begrudgingly provide. My local newspaper, the South Wales Argus, recently reported the story of Kevin Reeve, who has occupied the family home for 50 years and cared for his mother and father, who have both now sadly passed away. He is now underoccupying, losing between £35 and £45 a month and has been forced into trying to move.
The local housing association, Bron Afon, has catalogued the effects of this tax on the local community. It discovered that one person affected is a former solider suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. He lives with his daughter, who is hoping to go to university. They already underoccupy by one room. They are already cutting down on heating their home and eating. His daughter is now questioning whether she should go to university. He is resigned to trying to move. His current home is the one in which he raised his children, the home that he shared with his wife, who, sadly, has now died. He is proud of that home, and we should be proud of him, a veteran who has served our country. Is this the way we repay our servicemen?
The bedroom tax is another example of the chaos, confusion and poor implementation of chronically ill conceived policies by the Department for Work and Pensions. It is clear that this policy is unjustly penalising vulnerable people for something beyond their control. It is causing immense hardship and devastating people’s lives. It shows complete callousness towards those who rely on housing benefit. Many good people who rely on housing benefit feel that they live not in prosperity Britain but in poverty Britain, thanks to this Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government. Those responsible for this policy should hang their heads in shame.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, I should first declare my interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, which represents the housing associations across England.
I will speak briefly, on a personal basis, to say that I cannot support the Government’s policy on this. I believe it was misjudged in the first place and we are rapidly seeing the proof in the pudding. I cannot support something that deprives people of money that, by any standards, they need—the Government do not give people more in benefit than they need to live on—when they have no option to move somewhere else because of the shortage of smaller homes. That is quite apart from the fact that to describe these rooms as surplus to need is in many cases simply wrong, and even if they are surplus today, they are often not surplus tomorrow. Therefore, for example, a family with young children will have to have those children live in a room together, but after a year they might need to live apart.
This simply does not make sense. I very much regret that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, on this, were not passed, because that would have secured the Government some of what they wished but given a much fairer deal to individuals; for example by not removing the money if a reasonable alternative has not been offered to them.
However, the most fundamental reason—the proof of the pudding—is that this is not a saving to government any more than it frees up rooms. That is because of the huge cost to housing associations of having to work with individuals to help them, and the cost of the work and the money that the Government have had to put in to support individuals. It has removed capacity from the social housing sector to provide more homes. All of the money lost—and, frankly, the arrears that are being built up—will never be gained back from people who have no ability to pay it. That simply undermines the capacity to solve the very housing problem which the policy was theoretically meant to address but has failed to do.
Although my instincts are those of a team player, and my track record over a substantial period of time shows that to be the case, this is not something on which I can support my noble friends.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, I completely share the views so ably put by my noble friend Lady Sherlock and my other noble friends, so I will be brief.
On the anniversary of the introduction of the bedroom tax legislation, the Government are trying to close by statutory instrument a loophole without any understanding of how local authorities can identify the people affected or the numbers involved. Instead of trying to close this loophole the Government should finally do the right thing and scrap the bedroom tax altogether, because as the Budget figures show, it will cost more money than it saves. According to the BBC, due to the lack of smaller accommodation only 6% of those affected have moved.
I know that the Minister will have heard these arguments many times before, but they bear repeating. He will have heard that the bedroom tax discriminates,
“against the most vulnerable in society”,
and that the Government have shown,
“a lack of appreciation of the housing requirements of children and adults with disabilities and care needs”.
Those words are not from this side of the House but from the motion passed by his coalition partners at their annual conference last year. I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor, and I hope that more of his colleagues will join us in the Lobby this afternoon.
The one thing the Government have managed to do is to unite the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, and the Liberal Democrats in the view that this bedroom tax will have damaging electoral consequences for both parties of the coalition. However, there are other voices, too. The chief executive of the CAB says:
“The Government’s solution to spiralling Housing Benefit costs is simply creating more problems. Thousands are being pushed into arrears, 96 per cent of people affected have no alternative smaller homes to move into and some housing associations”—
as we have heard—
“say they are being forced to demolish homes whilst 1.8 million languish on waiting lists”.
The United Nations says that the bedroom tax is taking a heavy toll on the most vulnerable and recommends abolition and that there is a,
“danger of retrogression in the right to adequate housing in the United Kingdom”.
The Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation has described the policy as an,
“unfair, ill-planned disaster that is hurting our poorest families”.
This retrospective “move or pay” tax simply is not working. For instance, in Merseyside more than 26,000 families are affected, but only 155 have moved. The Work and Pensions Committee has found that between 60% and 70% of homes affected by the change contained,
“someone with a disability and many of these people will not be able to move home easily due to their disability”.
It asked the Government to exempt anyone whose home had been adapted. Instead they are closing a loophole to bring more people into its remit.
Of the 660,000 people affected, two-thirds of those are disabled. The think tank Demos reports that £28 billion will have been taken out of disabled pockets by 2018 due to the cuts in DLA, ESA and housing benefit. Empty properties are increasing, in some areas by a third. In South Shields there are whole empty streets because people are afraid to move into larger houses.
If people end up in emergency accommodation, it costs the country more. But the human cost is huge, too. Grandparents cannot have their grandchildren to stay, so childcare arrangements are affected, and single parents are losing children’s bedrooms. Informal care arrangements for disabled people have come to a halt. A room is not a spare room when carers sleep in it, when couples cannot share a bed for health reasons, or when it houses vital medical equipment such as dialysis machines.
Now the Government have realised that they have been telling local authorities to take away housing benefit from people who were entitled to it all along, so they want to close that loophole. That will mean that local authorities will now have to spend more money and time trying to find out from their records—which go back to 1996 and which they may not have in electronic format—the identity of those people who qualify. It causes bureaucratic chaos and will lead to even greater chaos. This Conservative-led Government should be listening to what people—including their partners in the coalition—are saying, and scrap the whole sorry mess.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, as the Regret Motion makes clear, we have to understand these regulations in the context of the impact of the bedroom tax.
My noble friend Lady Sherlock quoted Esther McVey on Radio 5. I will take us back to her rather wonderful interview on Radio 4, in which the interviewer had to drag out of her that the Government’s estimate is that only 8% of people had moved—a whole two percentage points more than the BBC estimate which she had been contesting. She was asked if she was disappointed. She replied:
“Well no, because it wasn’t that you had to move house”.
How is that consistent with her statement in debate in the other place? She said:
“The reason that we are putting these measures in place is that we want to ensure we make the best use of our social housing”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/14; col. 311.]
In addition, how is it consistent with the constant refrain:
“How can we justify 1 million spare rooms when other people are sometimes crammed together in a room?”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/3/13; col. 27.]
Can the Minister tell us exactly how many rooms have been freed up by this policy? As the Work and Pensions Committee report observed, it is,
“a blunt instrument for achieving this”
aim, and one that is causing hardship, as we have already heard from other noble Lords.
Why, then, have people not moved? As has already been said, it is partly because there is nowhere to move to. In the Independent, on 3 March, it was reported that,
“a severe shortage of smaller council homes across the country is being exacerbated by the right-to-buy scheme—leaving many victims of the bedroom tax with no choice but to accept reduced benefits”.
Also, many people do not want to move because they do not want to lose social networks that are very important to them—a point I have made over and over again in this House. We are not talking about housing in the abstract, but about people’s homes within communities that matter to them.
As Demos said, in a study it carried out on social ties,
“policies can serve to actively undermine the kind of self-help and mutual support that families engage in”.
One would have thought that that would be approved of by a Conservative-led Administration who believe in the big society. Reforms such as the removal of the underoccupancy penalty—dubbed the bedroom tax—have left people with a choice of either finding more money for rent from already stretched budgets or moving away from support networks that make life liveable for many.
We have heard about rising rent arrears, but they are only the tip of the iceberg. Earlier this week I attended the launch of a report by Community Links on the impact of the first year of so-called welfare reform—although I would call it social security cuts—in the London borough of Newham. The person presenting the findings pointed out that many people prioritise rent for fear of eviction. Therefore, there may not be rent arrears, but what other impact is it having on what people can spend on other essentials, and how many people are turning to payday lenders or, even worse, to loan sharks? That morning we heard tales of utter despair—the result of the cumulative impact of this and other benefit cuts such as council tax benefit.
The suggestion has been made: “Let them take lodgers”. Do we know how many people have taken on lodgers as a result of this policy? Some noble Lords who are following the Immigration Bill will know that later this afternoon we will talk about its residential tenancy provisions. Anyone who takes a lodger as a result of the bedroom tax will be turned into a mini-immigration officer and will have to check the immigration credentials of their lodger. Do we really want people on benefit being turned into mini-immigration officers to prevent illegal immigration?
The Minister, Esther McVey, pleaded that the BBC report showed how complex this is. I can suggest a simple solution: follow the policy of the Opposition—which I hope will very soon be the official policy of the Liberal Democrats—and abolish the bedroom tax.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I think I am the only serving, elected councillor who is likely to speak in this debate, unless the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in his declining days as a councillor—I believe he is standing down shortly—joins in to proclaim the new, belated Lib Dem policy on the bedroom tax. I bring a snapshot from Newcastle, where 5,400 households are affected, at an average cost to each of them of £13.47 a week. If paid, that represents around £3.75 million to be taken out of the local economy, so there is a knock-on effect, quite apart from the housing effect, on that economy. Just under one-quarter of those are working households, one-third have children and, as we have already heard, many have disabled people in them. In my own ward, there are 315 such households.
As has already been pointed out, it is not a simple matter to transfer into a smaller property. In Newcastle, we have 3,558 people seeking one-bedroom accommodation. The average number of available one-bedroom properties per year is 64. It would take a generation or more to accommodate those people. Some 615 are seeking to move down to two-bedroom accommodation. There is, admittedly, a slightly higher availability of this—all of 101 a year. Any effect on the private sector, which in Newcastle is largely taken up with students, will drive up rents. Landlords are increasingly reluctant to take tenants who are on benefits of one kind or another. This policy is not only cruel and inefficient; it is based on a complete misunderstanding—to put it generously—of what happens in the social housing market. It is damaging people’s lives.
I conclude with an anecdote about meeting a couple of people in their fifties—not in my own ward—who benefited from the decision which required the Government to effectively refund the amount paid because of the length of their tenure of the property. I was able to tell them they would be getting the money back but I also had to give the bad news that the Government were seeking to ensure that the money returned to them was spent on paying the bedroom tax. Here were two disabled people, living in a house for just under 30 years, with one of their grandchildren staying with them when I called. This just illustrates the cruelty and incompetence of the measure and I congratulate my noble friend on bringing this Motion of Regret.
Baroness King of Bow (Lab)
My Lords, when I saw that the Government were introducing an amendment to the bedroom tax, I mistakenly assumed they wanted to put right the wrongs visited on tenants by this unjust law. Instead, they want to close loopholes and increase the number of people victimised. As one housing expert said:
“This is a shambles caused by the DWP failing to understand the significance of their own legislation”.
This is an extraordinary failing by the Government that disproportionately burdens the most vulnerable, two-thirds of whom, as we have heard, are disabled. These people will have to wait for a Labour Government to abolish the bedroom tax—unless the Minister would like to tell us something quite unexpected today. One way that Labour will fund the reversal is to abolish the Government’s tax cuts for hedge funds. I have nothing against hedge funds—I want to see the City of London thrive because our economy depends on it. However, I do not want it to do so on the backs of the poorest and the disabled. I have rarely heard anything so perverse.
Austerity demands choices: choices reveal priorities. The Government’s priorities here are absolutely shameful. Why do they not concentrate on closing loopholes to end tax evasion by the richest instead of closing loopholes that hurt vulnerable people so much? I urge the Government to abolish this tax.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I realise that time is at a premium so I shall be brief and say just a few words. I remember very clearly, as will other noble Lords, the words of Lord Newton of Braintree who, to the great sadness of all, is no longer with us. In his intervention on Report during debates on what is now the Welfare Reform Act, he warned his colleagues in the Government that this would not last five minutes. Once people started realising what was happening and getting on to their MPs in droves, the Government would be forced to scrap it. It has not worked out quite like that but the bedroom tax is visibly unravelling before one’s eyes. It is not saving any money or freeing up any accommodation. My advice to the Minister would be to recognise when he is beaten. He has not a friend in the House. When you are in a hole the only sensible advice is to stop digging. I advise the Minister to recognise realities and run up the white flag.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, in her powerful speech, my noble friend Lady Sherlock has explained our opposition to this statutory instrument. It brings more people into the bedroom tax which should be abolished. She has had support from all around the House today. The tax is disastrous. A previous Tory Government introduced and repealed the poll tax in the same Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, said, this Government should have the courage and decency to do the same.
You do, of course, need sanctions in social security to ensure, for example, that compliance with JSA work search is not voluntary. However, the bedroom tax—for the first time ever—falls on the innocent, disabled and vulnerable. They are punished when they have done no wrong: they simply occupy the house that the council allocated them. The Government have now said to them: move or pay. Most tenants can do neither. As my noble friend Lord Beecham said, tenants who want to move will be waiting three to four years. Arrears mount; single people or couples on the waiting list who want smaller accommodation will never get it; pensioners wanting to downsize cannot. As for overcrowding, outside London six times more families are underoccupying than overcrowding Just helping pensioners to move would sort it, with grace and consent. The bedroom tax destroys sound housing policy.
Will the Government, nonetheless, make their savings? No, because benefit cuts have been shunted on to tenants to become irrecoverable arrears. In Norwich, which has spent every penny of its DHPs, 60% of tenants affected by the bedroom tax are now in average arrears of £300 and mounting. Nationally, around two-thirds of affected tenants are in arrears. DHPs are utterly insufficient, short-term, and a postcode lottery, yet that is the policy on which the Minister, sadly, relies. Carers UK says that 75% of tenants trying to pay were cutting back on food, heating, medical supplies and mobility. The fragile economy of tenants collapses, as they turn to food banks, payday loans and loan sharks, with debts from which I doubt many will ever recover. The Government’s notional savings become tenants’ irreversible, irrevocable debts and, in the process, we destroy lives.
Fifteen per cent of affected tenants, nearly half of those in arrears, have already received eviction warning notices. What happens then? Do we evict tenants into the private sector—private landlords do not want them and it costs more—or into bed-and-breakfast accommodation which costs even more, or what? Should they be rough sleeping? What about children and disabled people? Through no fault of their own, there are people who cannot pay their rent because the Government have cut their benefit.
Instead, do we allow rent arrears to grow and in the process threaten the very viability of housing associations, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, said? We have offered the Minister three possible strategies to help because every defence of the bedroom tax is false. The first option is that the bedroom tax should not apply to disabled people, as the Work and Pensions Committee said only yesterday. Two-thirds of affected tenants are disabled. One may ask why. Adaptions, at a cost of £6,500 a property, become wasted. As regards space, the CAB has said that for disabled people that extra room for carers or equipment is,
“a lifeline as vital as a guide dog or a wheelchair”.
Finally, disabled people need the support of neighbours, as my noble friend Lady Lister said. We talk about social or community care and at the same time the Government seek to pluck disabled people out of the very communities that provide that social care.
The second option is that it should apply only to those who refuse an acceptable alternative offer. Following the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, I should like to know what the position of the Lib Dems is. Will they continue to support the bedroom tax in Parliament while campaigning on the doorstep simultaneously for its repeal? The third option is that the Government could treat social tenants like private tenants and apply the bedroom tax only to new tenancies. Any of those options would help.
We will go further. The Labour Party is pledged to repeal the legislation. It is the most wretched piece of social security legislation that I have known in 25 years in this House. But by then, in the summer of 2015 after the election, we will have seen hundreds of thousands of social tenants—our fellow citizens, most of them disabled and many with children—punished for occupying a house that was allocated to them. They would have been doing no wrong but are unable to pay or to move. They may be deep in debt and fearing, or perhaps experiencing, the loss of their home. How can we do this to them? It is grotesque.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am the first to recognise a political device when it comes my way. Indeed, this is a political device to secure a wider debate on the spare room subsidy on the back of regulations which have already been made and have come into effect. I do not dispute the need for political devices or regret the use of political devices but it is clear that that is what is being used. I think I should start by clearly laying on the line our policy as Liberal Democrats. What was said at our conference and what we have heard today from noble Lords is the preamble. But two things are being called for: the first is a review and the second is to do with housebuilding.
More crucially than anything else, we want to see the effect that this policy is having in this country. As I understand it—my noble friend can tell me—the review of the policy is due to publish its initial findings soon. I always hesitate when the word “soon” is used but I know that my noble friend loves the word, so perhaps he will indicate whether it will be before the end of this Session, before the Summer Recess or whatever. It would be useful to know when we can have that information.
One would expect that a Labour Party that has designed its policy to abolish the whole thing—we could have a debate about that—will want to assert that a huge amount needs to be put right. But we need facts that stand up to such an assertion and to know exactly where we are. We need to know whether things need to be changed as a result of that independent review, which was put in place by the Welfare Reform Act. That is the position of my party.
Perhaps I may dwell on the issue of correcting secondary legislation, which is what the Motion is about. The unexpected consequences of legislation of the past must have affected all Governments. I could assert that an opposition party present today will at some time have had to use corrective secondary legislation for something which has appeared after primary legislation has been put in place. Perhaps my noble friend can tell me whether I am right or wrong.
There are problems with the 1996 legislation. Perhaps my noble friend can tell us whether it was designed for social sector tenants. The impact that we are talking about is with regard to social sector tenants but my understanding is that that original legislation was put in place particularly for private sector housing and as a protection for private sector tenants. Perhaps my noble friend can advise us whether something that was designed for a different purpose is producing unexpected and unintended consequences.
My second point concerns what is happening in local authorities. Although I do not have as many years of experience in local government as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I did spend quite a considerable amount of time in local government. I cannot recall whether I spent more or less time than my noble friend Lord Tope. I certainly remember that we had the use of electronic equipment in the mid-1990s when I was a city councillor. How many local authorities are having to resort to paper trails in order to find out the number of people affected by the 1996 legislation? Do some local authorities have up-to-date information? When there are assertions that between 3,000 and 40,000 people are affected, somewhere there must be reasoning behind those assertions. Do we expect to find the correct solutions and answers soon? Will we be able to find out very soon how many people are affected?
Will my noble friend reassure the House that local authorities are being reimbursed for the extra work that they are having to do to trawl through the paper trails where those records have not been kept electronically or have been lost? Now that the loophole is closed, I understand that there is now an issue relating to discretionary housing payments paid to people who were subjected to the extra charge between March 2013 and March 2014. People who were awarded DHP were awarded it on the basis that they needed it at that time. Can my noble friend reassure me that there will be no question of people having to repay it and that that discretionary housing payment remains in place?
Today, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, gave an example of a case, which has been publicised, in Torfaen, the borough in which I live. I note that the Government made additional money available for discretionary housing payments to all 386 local authorities in this land and that only about 80 applied for money. In Wales, only Cardiff, Caerphilly and Conwy—it is very easy to remember them as the three “C”s—applied for discretionary housing payments and Torfaen did not. One can only assume therefore that local authorities which say that they do not need any more discretionary housing payment have enough to make available to people who have a need. I have a number of questions to ask those who support the case, which I read about in my local newspaper. Did those involved go to the local authority? Did the local authority turn them down for extra support, given that local authorities have enough money as they did not need to apply to the Government for additional money?
The second issue my party is concerned about is that of new homes. One of the problems that might come about as a result of this policy is the distortion as local authorities and housing associations decide to build more single-bedroom units. Can my noble friend give me any indication of what is happening in the housebuilding sector, not just in England but also in Wales? We could have a direct comparison with the record on housebuilding of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition and a Labour Government. On that matter, can my noble friend tell me whether the Government’s target for building 170,000 new homes in England by the end of this Parliament in 2015 is still on track? Is it being matched in Wales by the Labour Government on the number of houses that they will be building as well?
Finally, I would like to ask my noble friend a question about the overall budget for housing benefit. The Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have all said that we have to try to contain the overall budget. In fact, in the other place all three parties voted in favour of the retention of that hold on the overall budget. Will the changes that have come about as a result of amendments to the secondary legislation affect the original estimates of expenditure on housing benefit, and how much, if at all, will this put up the bill for housing benefit in this coming year?
I have asked my noble friend a variety of questions. I would be grateful if he could tell us when “soon” means in terms of the first stage of the review of this policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I will not test the patience of the House by going over ground that we have covered many times in recent weeks and months. On the general nature of the policy, one issue that is worth my dealing with is the recent BBC estimate that 6% of those affected by the spare room subsidy, or 30,000 people, moved during the first 11 months of its operation. Noble Lords opposite may see this as a sign of failure, but we do not. It is an example of the behavioural response that this policy is successfully driving. We have seen further evidence of this again today in the announcement by Housing Partners Ltd that in the past year it has increased by a quarter the number of successful mutual exchanges for social tenants. Its experience also shows that there is a steady supply of smaller one and two-bedroom properties available, which is at odds with some of the claims made today from the Benches opposite.
There are another couple of points on our general position that I have not dealt with before. One, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and amplified by the noble Lords, Lord Taylor and Lord Low, was about money-saving, so let me be precise on that. We know, and have stated in our impact assessment, that some people could downsize, some could move into the private rented sector and others could get discretionary housing payments. However, savings remain estimated at £500 million per annum and this did not change in the Budget, so the party opposite will not be able to argue—unless it can persuade the OBR—that this policy should be got rid of on the basis of cost because that is not what the OBR has calculated.
On the point about kinship carers, they will be treated as foster parents where they do not have a child placed with them or the child is not treated as occupying their home. However, where a carer is responsible for a child and the child is therefore treated as a member of the claimant’s household, they will be treated the same as other claimants under the size criteria.
I shall restrict my remaining comments to the Motion and the amendment to the regulations, explaining first what these regulations do. The instrument amends paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 2006. These provide transitional protection for certain housing benefit claimants. The amendment removes the transitional protection from social sector tenants. This means that their housing benefit will be determined using Regulation 13 of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, which sets out the maximum rent in the social sector.
This transitional protection was provided for private sector tenants when local reference rent rules were introduced in 1996. These restricted the amount of housing benefit that could be awarded through private landlords charging high rents. Currently, fewer than 40,000 private sector claimants, mostly pensioners, are still covered by this protection. In answer to my noble friend Lord German’s question, it was never required by, or intended for, people living in social housing. Transitional support has already been provided for those affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy through discretionary housing payments. Unlike the loophole provision, this is available to those who claimed benefit after 1996.
Let me go through some of the specific issues raised about the loophole. My noble friend Lord German asked about numbers. The cost of the loophole will be so small that it will not impact on our forecast of housing benefit expenditure of £23.9 billion for the year. The claims that our estimates of the size are wrong are based on FoI figures that are at best speculative and at worst misleading. The claimants have 13 months to make their claims.
Regarding who will be expected to meet the costs—a question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nye, and my noble friend Lord German—these will be met by the DWP through the normal subsidy arrangements. At the moment, we have £2 million of additional administrative funding to distribute.
My noble friend asked whether those covered by the loophole who received discretionary housing payments would have to repay it. The answer is no; the award was made when there was a need and reimbursing the housing benefit would not change that.
Let me pick up the point on inheritance, which we dealt with at some length during that recent Urgent Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. When a claimant dies, anyone living in a household who both takes over the tenancy and is awarded housing benefit within four weeks of the death can inherit the loophole protection. That was a process we already allowed for when we were looking at our costs. As my noble friend inquired, we are working on a major review of this for next year as well as an interim review, and I think I will stick with my “later this year” rather than “soon” at this point.
Turning now to what the Motion itself says, the noble Baroness’s Motion makes a series of unsubstantiated assertions. First, it states that the regulations cannot be amended without the precise number affected by the loophole being known. That simply is not true. It is not about numbers; it is a matter of principle. Parliament never intended that this transitional protection should apply to this group of claimants or to this policy. The regulations have been amended to restore that original policy intention.
Secondly, there is an accusation in the Motion of government confusion and mishandling. There is no confusion. As soon as the loophole was identified, we were clear that we would close it and that is exactly what we have done. Guidance was issued to local authorities. Arrangements were put in place to ensure that central Government met the costs of the loophole—both the benefit costs and the additional administrative costs.
The final claim in the Motion from the noble Baroness is that there is a disproportionate impact from the regulations on the most vulnerable. It is the loophole as it stood that was arbitrary and unfair. This transitional protection was never intended for this policy. As a result, it has protected a random group of claimants without a meaningful test or reason.
The removal of the spare room subsidy has now been operating for a year and it is working. The latest data show that the numbers facing a reduction in their housing benefit dropped by around 50,000 between May and November last year. Discretionary housing payments are funded and working: only £13 million of the £20 million reserve funding that we set aside has been allocated to local authorities. Revised DHP guidance was published yesterday, promoting longer-term awards where appropriate. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the Government are meeting their human rights obligations and public sector equality duty. This year, we are saving about £490 million a year from the housing benefit bill.
In conclusion, the policy is working. The loophole has been closed. Arrangements are in place to support local authorities and those affected by the loophole. Finally, claimants have up to 13 months to make a claim that the loophole applied to them. For these reasons, this Motion should be withdrawn.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I am in the unusual position of saying that I am not sure whether I agree with a single word that the Minister has just said. It was in fact the second most disappointing speech of the day.
The Minister has put forward three broad arguments. First, that it does not matter how many people are affected. But it matters to me, it matters to them and it matters to the local authorities, which have to deal with the mess that the Government have created.
Secondly, there is the question of savings. I noticed that the Minister failed to answer my question on what the net savings would be. Clearly, these savings are vanishing before us like a will o’ the wisp. The Minister also failed to explain how the savings remain the same, despite the Government having had to increase the money allocated for discretionary housing payments from £20 million to £190 million. The Government seem determined to ignore the costs and problems created for councils and other housing providers. If there is any doubt about that, let us remember that the National Audit Office said that the Government’s costings do not take account of,
“the full scale of potential impacts”,
and do not include the additional costs faced by local authorities. We have heard so much about those costs today from my noble friend Lord Beecham and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
There is then the question of overcrowding. As my noble friend Lady Hollis pointed out, this argument is frankly specious. There are not enough smaller homes to move into, a point underscored by my noble friend Lord Beecham, and where they are they are in the wrong places. They are not in the places where people are being asked to move. People have not moved because there is nowhere to move to. During the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and my noble friend Lady Hollis put an amendment to this House which said that the bedroom tax should not apply if someone could not be offered somewhere else to move to. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, had the courage to vote for that amendment at the time and I commend him for his consistency. Other noble Lords did not and the government Benches voted it down. Let us not therefore pretend that what the Government are really worried about is overcrowded houses. They had every opportunity to correct that and they failed it.
We have heard so many powerful speeches today about the misery and desperation caused by this policy. If the noble Lord, Lord Freud, really believes that this policy is a success, I would hate to see what his failures look like. If he feels that he is getting the right behavioural effects, what are they? Are they in the family described by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, who are not eating? Are they the families who are going without or giving up bedrooms needed by carers or disabled people? No: the handful of people who have moved are doing so out of desperation, not because they were responding to a behavioural stimulus.
I found the speech from the noble Lord, Lord German, very disappointing. I was delighted to read the reports of Tim Farron saying that the Liberal Democrats were going to withdraw their support for the bedroom tax.
Lord German
When I asked my honourable friend in the other House whether that is what he had said, he said that he had not. I have his speech with me and I can also tell the noble Baroness that my honourable friend was interviewed by ITV on this matter but that ITV news decided not to broadcast his comments because they did not substantiate the allegations that the noble Baroness is now making, nor did they substantiate what the Guardian had said. Both of those sources are incorrect; the source is here in front of me and I invite my noble friends to listen to it.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I am very grateful for that clarification. I take from it that the Liberal Democrats are in fact supportive of the bedroom tax and I thank the noble Lord for making that clear. If I have got that wrong again, the noble Lord has a very clear way of demonstrating it. They can join us in the Content Lobby today and the nation will judge them by that. If enough noble Lords were willing to come behind us today to stand up and say that this House does not believe that this is a good policy, or that this cruel, vicious, unfair and inefficient tax should be allowed to stay, a start would be to regret these regulations today. I urge noble Lords to do that and if enough people do, maybe the Government will think again. Maybe this House could start a process that would lead to the bedroom tax being repealed in this Parliament. However, if the Liberal Democrats will not do that and the Minister will not relent, let the country be in no doubt: the Labour Government will repeal this when they come to office. In the mean time, let us send a message today. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Immigration Bill
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:10 - Division on Amendment 53 - Ayes: 130 / Noes: 175 - Amendment 53 disagreed.
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Before implementing a pilot scheme to preclude the making of a residential tenancy agreement to which a person disqualified as a result of immigration status is party, the Secretary of State shall—
(a) consult such persons as she considers appropriate as to the criteria to be applied in order to assess and evaluate the scheme;(b) lay before Parliament a report on the proposed criteria.( ) The criteria shall include the application of an equalities impact assessment.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is the first amendment in a group also containing Amendment 25 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, along with several other amendments in her name. It is clear that there is widespread agreement that the provisions dealing with residential tenancies proposed in the Bill are complicated and risky—complicated in their operation and risky in the scope there may be for discrimination. However, I do not need to re-rehearse our previous debates today.
The Government have been very clear that—I am using a term that I hope will carry less baggage than some—the scheme will be tried out and tested in a single area from October this year, that formal evaluation will be produced, and that decisions on implementation more generally will be taken in the next Parliament on the basis of the evaluation via a negative resolution order. I have used pretty much word for word the language of my noble friend Lord Taylor in Committee on 10 March, which noble Lords can read in Hansard. Because I accept all that he said, I have therefore chosen to build on it.
It will be entirely obvious to the Minister what assurances I am seeking in my amendment: consultation as to the criteria to be applied to assess and evaluate the scheme. I acknowledge that I have of course pre-empted that consultation by reference to an equalities impact assessment. We can all think of a number of criteria, but we can also think of large numbers of organisations and individuals with expertise in the field who could helpfully have an input into the construction of the evaluation programme, and they should have an input. So my amendment proposes that,
“the Secretary of State shall … consult such persons as she considers appropriate”.
That is not a get-out because it is a well understood formula. I should say in parenthesis that I am glad that I have been allowed to say “she” of the Secretary of State and not “they”, which I understand is a new form of drafting that was imposed on me last week. The amendment would then require a report on the proposed criteria to be laid before Parliament, thus, if you like, hedging with precautions in advance. That is what the amendment is about. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that such arrangements as I have included in my amendment or others that are equally as reliable and transparent will be made. My amendment refers to a pilot scheme. I do not use the language of “phasing” or “rolling out” because I do not accept the implication inherent in those terms whereby, after the first application, further operation is unstoppable and that first application is to be in a single area.
I have two major concerns about the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It mentions,
“one or more pilot schemes”.
There could, therefore, be more than one pilot to start with, and we know that in the Commons the proposal similar to that made by those on the noble Baroness’s Benches would apply to a London borough, a local authority and a county in each of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Alternatively, it could mean successive pilot schemes, which is rather close to a rollout. I realised this morning that it is ironic that I am more sceptical about this than the Opposition Benches.
My second concern is that the detail of that pilot or pilots would be in secondary legislation because the noble Baroness’s amendments take out all the other clauses dealing with residential tenancies. Therefore, secondary legislation would have to deal with every aspect, every component and—importantly—every exclusion from the scheme. The legislation would have to come to Parliament in the context of a negative resolution order. There would be far less opportunity than we have had in successive stages of primary legislation to scrutinise the detail. In addition—this is a fundamental distinction—we have been able to discuss and arrive at changes, which is not something that one can readily do, if at all, with secondary legislation.
Therefore, a single pilot process—with codes of practice and exclusions, for example, for hostels, refuges and much other accommodation, including student accommodation—is a far less risky route. I am not given to quoting Members of the other House but my honourable friend the Member for Cambridge got it right when he said that if pilots were imposed on more than one area, if they went wrong, they would go wrong in more than one area. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 25 and to our other amendments in the group that are consequential.
Before I proceed, the comment that I should like to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that if, under the terms of our amendment, the Government got it wrong over the pilot, their chances of getting a further extension of their scheme—bearing in mind that we have called for primary legislation if that were the case—would of course be extremely remote. That would be an incentive for a Government who wanted to see their scheme extended to get the pilot right and to get it fair. For that reason, the noble Baroness’s objections to our amendments are, to put it mildly, a bit thin.
This debate relates to the part of the Bill on which we spent the most time in Committee, because many noble Lords had questions about how the provisions would work in practice. However, despite the time spent debating the Government’s proposals, a great many of the questions remained unanswered. We agree with the principle of making it more difficult for illegal migrants to rent property. In Committee, we proposed a new clause seeking to put in place a pilot to be undertaken before the provisions could be put fully into effect.
We have now tabled amendments that would remove the entire chapter and replace it with a power for the Secretary of State to undertake a pilot along the same lines. If the pilot is successful, the Government could then come back to primary legislation to implement it fully. Given the substantial number of concerns that have been raised about the detail of this part of the Bill, and the need to ensure that it works well and receives proper parliamentary scrutiny, this is an eminently reasonable proposition.
A range of organisations have expressed serious concerns about the impact of the proposals on landlords and residential tenancies. The vast majority of landlords—82%—do not support the proposals, according to a survey by the Residential Landlords Association. Giving evidence in the Commons, the chairman of the National Landlords Association said:
“It is going to impose an administrative burden on landlords who are not experts in immigration … The principle of checking identity is not so much the worry as the logistics of how that is done and understanding the documentation”.
In the same evidence session, the policy director of the Residential Landlords Association said that,
“we think that the Bill and its provisions are not workable and will not be effective in achieving the objectives set out”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 29/10/13; col. 43.]
Of course, one of the key concerns is whether these measures will be workable. The Government have published a draft code of practice for landlords. We asked a number of questions about this in Committee, including: who will be included in the provisions? How will tenants who have never rented out a property know about their obligations in relation to subletting? How will landlords familiarise themselves with, understand and recognise all the potentially relevant documentation?
We also asked questions about enforcement, including: how will it be established that a landlord had acted in breach of their duty? How will the fine be collected? Will provision be made for landlords who repeatedly break the law? Will Home Office staff become overwhelmed as a result of landlords using the telephone notification to the Home Office that they have conformed to the requirements in the Bill as a form of shield?
The Government’s replies on these points were, for the most part, very general and not very helpful. For example, on enforcement, it was stated that the provisions would be enforced,
“as part of the normal business of enforcing immigration law”,—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1653.]
that they would be applied on a “light-touch basis”, and that the Government would be relying on landlords or agents to give evidence that they have complied with the prescribed requirements.
One thing we asked for in the light of these concerns was for the code of practice to receive greater scrutiny, and we are pleased that the Government have listened and require the code to be laid before Parliament and be made by order, but they should have gone further and at least made it subject to the affirmative procedure. We are also pleased by the Government’s commitment that the code will be ready before the first phase of the rollout begins.
A further concern, which we also heard about in Committee from many noble Lords, relates to the impact on vulnerable citizens, including victims of domestic violence, those with chaotic lifestyles, and pregnant women. We know that landlords already avoid renting to groups they perceive as higher risk, and given the difficulty in identifying documents and the potential liability for landlords, it is likely that landlords will want to be on the safe side and ask for a passport in every case, but many vulnerable people do not have a passport.
On this, again, the Minister’s answers were not particularly helpful. He said that the Bill provides,
“discretionary powers for the Secretary of State to authorise a tenant who has no lawful status to rent property”.—[Official Report, 12/3/14; col. 1798.]
How will that work in practice? There is a real danger that people, vulnerable people in particular, will either become homeless or be driven into the hands of unscrupulous landlords.
There is also widespread concern about the potential discriminatory nature of the proposals. These concerns have been expressed by a number of organisations, including Shelter, Liberty and the Catholic Church. We also heard them expressed in Committee. Again, we are pleased that the Government have listened and that the code of practice in relation to discrimination will receive greater scrutiny.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I have been engaged with the landlord and tenant clauses of the Bill through all the stages of its passage through your Lordships’ House. In Committee, I tabled nine amendments covering the duty for landlords to consider the immigration status of their tenants and, as a result, have had meetings with the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the key civil servants from the Home Office, together with representatives of landlords and tenants. These sessions have led to a series of clarifications and alterations to the Bill on which I will now comment.
We have already heard the welcome news on student accommodation, where, very helpfully, the Government have moved a long way. Another key ingredient in our discussions has been the issue covered by Amendments 24 and 25. This relates to a pilot scheme, trial or pathfinder, which representatives of both landlords and tenants see as essential before the new measure is applied more generally.
I pay tribute to the Minister for his concerted efforts to take on board the anxieties of those from the Residential Landlords Association, Crisis, the British Property Federation and others at our meetings. It would not be true to say that the requirement for landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants is welcomed. Landlords do not want an extra administrative task, with a hefty fine if they get it wrong. Those representing tenants’ interests remain convinced that the measure will make it even more difficult than it is already for anyone who might possibly be thought of as a foreigner to get a decent flat. However, these organisations are a good deal happier today than they were at the start of the process. A whole series of undertakings and expressions of intent has now been set out. Some of the changes will appear in the Bill through the government amendments brought forward today. Others will come in the details in secondary legislation and subsequent guidance and codes of practice, including in relation to potential discrimination.
I now have a long list of commitments and clarifications from the Government which, in combination, waylay a good many of the fears we have raised about this duty on landlords. I will now summarise the most significant of these, not least to enable the Minister to correct me if I am mistaken in any respect.
First, as we have heard, lettings to almost all students are taken out of the equation, including in private sector halls and also in houses and flats. Secondly, hostels run by charities and housing associations for homeless people are excluded, as are refuges for women fleeing violence, and accommodation for vulnerable people in immediate need. Thirdly, those leaving prison will be able to rely on much simpler paperwork to satisfy requirements than was feared.
Fourthly, only in exceptional circumstances will there be any need to check on tenants after they have moved in during the period of their tenancy. Fifthly, landlords will not have responsibility for checking on anyone else moving into the property after the tenant moves in, provided any additional occupier does not pay rent to the landlord.
Sixthly, the Home Office will have a hotline to deal with queries within 48 hours. After I expressed some disbelief that this would actually happen, I received reassurances that, if the Home Office fails to provide an answer within 48 hours on working days, the landlord can assume the verification has taken place and will not incur any penalty.
Seventhly, any organisation which wants to take responsibility from landlords for verifying the status of tenants can act as an agency. I understand that a number of bodies, including some that currently conduct reference and credit checks, have already made approaches to the Home Office. No doubt such agencies could do the job more quickly and cheaply than most local managing agents by becoming real experts in the process.
Eighthly, a consultative group chaired by a Minister will be created and will involve relevant bodies including the British Property Federation, Crisis, the Residential Landlords Association and others. This group will look at the secondary legislation, codes of practice, regulations, draft instruments and so on that relate to this measure.
Ninthly, with particular relevance to Amendments 24 and 25 that relate to one or more pilots, we now know that there will be such a trial in one area and that it will be big enough to provide for a proper evaluation. The consultative group will be fully involved to assess the impact of this new duty, and there will be no rollout of this measure before the evaluation is concluded and any consequent changes have been made to the arrangements. Finally, in any case there will be no rollout beyond the one trial area before the general election next year. All of these changes, and perhaps in particular the emphasis placed upon the pilot, trial or pathfinder scheme, have been well worth the effort in pursuing negotiations with the Home Office.
The position we are now in feels very different from where we came in a couple of months ago. This says something about the value of this House in raising concerns and, I believe, in improving the legislation and influencing the actions of government that will follow from the legislation. My guess is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will receive the reassurances she seeks by her Amendment 24. It would be churlish of me to do other than express appreciation at this Report stage for the way in which the Minister has taken matters forward. Indeed, I look forward to joining colleagues on the ministerial consultative group that will engage with the trial run of the new regime.
Therefore I cannot, in all fairness, support Amendment 25 and those that follow in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and colleagues. However, I am grateful for the consistent support of the opposition Benches for all the changes that now leave the Bill in much better shape in this regard.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the debates on the landlord provisions in the Bill have been good. I thank noble Lords for highlighting a number of very important issues, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her notion of the importance of workability for the scheme which we discussed in Committee. I also reiterate the appreciation of the Minister’s efforts that was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Best.
I welcome the phased approach to implementation that the Minister has put forward in discussion. This will ensure that the system works in practice and is well communicated. I welcome the good length of time which has been left for the trial, the imaginative changes that have been made relating to students, and the various other commitments so elegantly summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I would add the assurance that the Minister kindly gave in discussions we had, about a simple, useable website for landlords and tenants on the new rules.
However, it seems that the amendments would confine legislation to a pilot, so there would be no promise of legislation in this important area if the first phase worked, as we hope it will. That would strike at the heart of the Bill. Moreover, I think that my noble friend Lady Hamwee is wrong to highlight only the equality impact assessment. The burden on landlords, the way that enforcement works and the operation of the fines are also important considerations that we need to assess after the trial. For all these reasons, I encourage noble Lords to support the government amendments and to reject the other amendments before us.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 25 I will simply make two very brief points about what I hope the evaluation of the pilot will include. The helpful note from the Minister prior to today made clear that it will look at the impact on tenants, including the impact on vulnerable groups. I ask that children should be included among those vulnerable groups, given the fears about the implications for children’s rights under the UNCRC and about possible homelessness that have been voiced by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others. There is also a possible knock-on effect on local authorities if, as feared, there is an increase in homelessness among families with children.
The second point refers to lodgers. I am not quite sure whether it was covered by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, who mentioned landlords not having to check people who then move in. Will this include the tenants of landlords, or social tenants who take a lodger? Certainly in Committee it was said that they will be included. If they are included, it is very important that any pilot or any evaluation includes the impact on them. This could be a group of very vulnerable people, some of them affected by the bedroom tax, who take in a lodger in order to try to make up the shortfall from the bedroom tax. They probably do not think of themselves as landlords at all, and would then have to grapple with a long code of practice and act as mini-immigration officers. I fear that that may not work very well. Therefore, I hope that the evaluation will include that group.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I had a number of concerns about this part of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Best, was absolutely right to say that landlords do not like it—I think that that was a point made also by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Well, of course, they do not like it, because it is asking them to do something, and nobody likes that—it does not matter what group it is.
The question we need to ask ourselves is: is what is now being asked of them fair and reasonable? The information that I have been given to help alleviate my concerns convinces me that the provisions now in the Bill are reasonable and will be made workable by the code of practice. I want particularly to thank my noble friend the Minister for his hard work in making certain that the concerns that have been raised by all sides have been taken into account as much as possible. It is never, of course, totally possible to alleviate everybody’s concerns, but what the Home Office has now said is very reassuring that this is a scheme which, although perhaps difficult in places, will be a practical solution.
If what is in the Bill is a practical solution, is what is before us in Amendment 25 any better? The answer to that, clearly, is no. I do not think that it helps the situation at all; it lacks definitions; and it would cause far more confusion than the Bill before us, as amended.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for all his consideration, for meeting me and for his informative and constructive letter, which covered Kids Company’s concerns around young people who find themselves with non-immigration status. However, I would like to have put on record clarification around the residential tenancy provision, which is a tremendously important issue for this group and carries several implications for their well-being. Can the Minister confirm that the residential tenancy provisions do not apply in the case of a child with irregular status or any child who is under 18? If the young person, having turned 18, has applied for leave to remain in the UK and while the application is being determined, do the tenancy provisions apply? Finally, is the position the same in the provisions relating to bank accounts, which those young people will need in order to pay their rent?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I made clear my support for the Government when I spoke on Amendment 23. Therefore, it will not surprise the House that I have some difficulty with the thinking behind this group of amendments. I shall not repeat my philosophical concerns, but where the matter comes to a sharp point is the position on overstaying and illegal migrants. We need to enforce immigration law. There is public concern about it. If we delay taking action, that public concern will increase and give rise to perhaps nastier people trying to ride that particular issue and gain publicity from it. I am interested in hearing how we minimise delays in moving this part of the legislation forward. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, introduce Amendment 25 and how it could lead to a need for further primary legislation, it seemed to me that that could be a means by which the measure could be stopped altogether and the whole proposal would sink with all hands.
To a lesser extent, I have the same problem with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, which seems to add another cycle into the consideration of an issue which is very high on the public agenda. If we fail to address it, we will probably regret not having done so. I hope that my noble friend, as he has on other occasions having made concessions, will stick to his guns and make sure that we can move this secondary legislation forward in the very near future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, we have discussed at length and, I hope, to some good ends the important objective of this part of the Bill. I want to restate some of the background for the benefit of the House.
We are seeking in this Bill to control illegal migrant access to the private rented sector, because we have listened carefully to the public’s concern about the need to prevent illegal immigration. That follows on very neatly from the contribution of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. To this end, the Government are committed to remaining firm on border controls, but we can provide a complete response to illegal immigration only if we work in partnership with those offering employment, housing and other services to deny the practical means of remaining to those without permission to stay.
The landlord provisions have been carefully drafted to deliver a scheme which works, which defines the differing responsibilities of landlord, agent and tenant, and which provides clear, robust safeguards for both landlords and vulnerable groups in need of accommodation. The drafting mirrors the existing civil penalty scheme for employers of illegal workers, which we know works well in practice. The proposed opposition amendment would sweep away these carefully constructed clauses and replace them with a pilot provision lacking the necessary detail and clarity.
I understand the desire of noble Lords to ensure that the landlords scheme is “workable” and that the provisions are tested and carefully evaluated. Indeed, it is our intention to adopt a carefully phased approach to implementation and to ensure that we get the guidance and support services absolutely right before considering wider implementation beyond the first phase. As we have made clear, decisions on further implementation will be taken after the general election during the next Parliament. I should make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we need no further incentive to get this right than to deliver a policy which we consider is important for the control of illegal immigration to this country.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for tabling her Amendment 24. The Government have given a commitment to a carefully managed, phased implementation of the landlords scheme. The scheme will be implemented initially, as has been said by noble Lords, following on from commitments that I have already made, in a single geographical area, and the Government have committed to a full evaluation of the first phase. Any decisions on a wider rollout will be taken in the light of the evaluation after the general election during the next Parliament.
My noble friend’s amendment is intended to be supportive, and I have considerable sympathy with the objectives behind it—my noble friend seeks reassurance on issues that I know concern her. As the House will know, I have been discussing the landlord provisions with my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Best, and a number of expert groups, including the Residential Landlords Association, Crisis and the British Property Federation. I completely share their concern that the scheme should be introduced carefully, with the benefit of advice and input from expert groups.
I can therefore inform the House that, following these discussions and in the light of the contributions that noble Lords across the House have made in debates on these provisions, we have decided to convene a formal consultative panel to oversee the operation and evaluation of the first phase. It will be chaired by a Home Office Minister. The panel will be established within the next few months and its full composition will be finalised once a decision has been reached on the location of the initial phase—we need local knowledge to support the group. I have invited the noble Lord, Lord Best, and a number of groups to join the panel. It will also include local representatives from the area covered by the trial. The panel will provide transparency, objectivity and the necessary degree of expert input for the first phase, the location of which will be determined and published before the House rises for the summer.
We expect to announce the location for the first phase at that time and will then indicate the principal proposed themes for the evaluation, leaving it to the panel to lead work on the development of specific evaluation measures and metrics. Of course, there are obvious areas that it would be sensible for any proper valuation to cover, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made clear in her contribution, including the ease with which landlords and tenants can comply with the new checks and access the necessary guidance and support services. I hope that I can reassure the House that one objective of such an evaluation is to eliminate any impact on vulnerable groups or the incidence of unlawful racial discrimination by landlords. The desired objective, which lies at the bottom of the whole policy, is to deny rented accommodation to illegal migrants.
However, Amendment 25, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would remove the framework from primary legislation altogether and place it wholly in secondary legislation, lessening the degree of parliamentary oversight. That simply ignores the fact that the provisions have enjoyed the closest scrutiny in this Parliament. We have, as far as possible, placed details of the proposed scheme in the primary legislation, reserving the use of regulation-making powers only where necessary. The amendment would not provide a clear legal basis to operate new landlord duties, even as a pilot. It provides no mechanism for landlords to object or appeal against a penalty, rendering the new clause incompatible with human rights law. Neither does it provide transparency in the type of tenancy agreement to be exempt from the checking requirement.
The Bill makes those provisions clear in primary legislation, in the interest of providing certainty for vulnerable groups. The Government have worked closely with bodies representing landlords, students, the homeless and vulnerable and provided important safeguards in primary legislation. It would be understandable if they were concerned if those safeguards were no longer enshrined in primary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will know that the negative procedure provides for further scrutiny before any further rollout of the scheme.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked specifically about lodgers of social tenants. A social tenant who takes a lodger will be a landlord for the purposes of the scheme. The Home Office will work with social landlords to help their tenants understand their obligations.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The reason I raised the matter was to ensure that lodgers were included as part of the evaluation and, going back to the question of vulnerable groups, that children were specifically considered.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I hope that I made that clear. I think that the record will show that I said that that would form part of the evaluation.
Let us not forget that the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on which we have not yet voted, but which I think the whole House welcomes, puts the welfare of children at the centre of the Bill in all considerations. So what I am saying includes children and vulnerable groups as part of the evaluation of the scheme. That is part of making it effective. I hope that that reassures my noble friend Lady Benjamin as well. Those with outstanding in-time applications will be allowed to rent. I have written to her on many points that she has rightly raised on behalf of an important sector of vulnerable people. I thank her for her correspondence.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I was never going to persuade my noble friend not to use the words “phased” or “rollout”, but it is the substance rather than the language that matters, I think.
Like the Minister, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was not suggesting that the Government do not have an incentive to get this right. The noble Lord referred in his speech consistently to a pilot, but his amendment still talks about a pilot or pilots in the plural. As I said, one can read that as meaning either consecutive or concurrent—or possibly even both. Much of what the noble Lord said seemed to me to be an argument for what the Government are proposing, but I will thank him for one thing, because I am not normally called thin, so I am grateful for that. The matters for evaluation, to which two noble Baronesses have referred, are extremely important, and I was glad to hear the comments about them.
I do not want to take longer than another sentence or two, but I would say that the account given by the noble Lord, Lord Best, is the best evidence that I could have heard that the procedure that I seek is the one that will actually be followed, given the assurances from the Minister. I would say to noble Lords that I did not know that a formal consultative panel was to be proposed, and I am very glad to hear it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Residential tenancies: pilot
(1) The Secretary of State may by order make one or more pilot schemes under which landlords in a designated area must not authorise an adult to occupy premises under a residential tenancy agreement if the adult is disqualified as a result of their immigration status.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may make provision about—
(a) the principles by reference to which the pilot (or pilots) will operate;(b) the circumstances under which a landlord may authorise an adult to occupy premises under the terms of the pilot (or pilots);(c) descriptions of persons to be identified as landlords for the purposes of the pilot (or pilots);(d) descriptions of applicable residential tenancy agreements for the purposes of the pilot (or pilots); (e) descriptions of persons disqualified by their immigration status from occupying premises under the pilot (or pilots);(f) applicable penalties for landlords in contravention of the terms of the pilot (or pilots) and enforcement of such penalties;(g) excuses available to landlords and appeals against penalties; and(h) the publication of codes of practice for landlords.(3) An order under subsection (1) must specify—
(a) the area or areas in respect of which the pilot (or pilots) operates;(b) the day on which the pilot (or pilots) comes into effect; and(c) the period for which the pilot (or pilots) has effect. (4) The Secretary of State must publish, and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report setting out an evaluation of any pilot (or pilots) ordered under subsection (1).”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, we have a number of amendments in this group but we will not move any of them. In a sentence, although the Government have certainly not moved as far as we would like, we welcome that they have moved closer to our position.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“11A An agreement under which accommodation is provided to a student who has been nominated to occupy it by an institution or body of the kind mentioned in paragraph 11(2).”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“(6) The code (or revised code)—
(a) may not be issued unless a draft has been laid before Parliament, and(b) comes into force in accordance with provision made by order of the Secretary of State.”
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, these amendments have been tabled in the light of comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee recommended that the code regarding the prevention of discrimination should be laid before Parliament and then brought into force by negative resolution order. The Government accept this recommendation.
In relation to the code regarding general matters, the committee considered that this should be subject to no less a degree of parliamentary scrutiny than that which applies to the equivalent code relating to the employers’ civil penalty scheme. The committee further suggested that this code should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We considered this carefully, but concluded that the negative resolution procedure would provide the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We have discussed this to some degree in the previous amendments. This code will provide technical guidance on matters of interpretation and practical operation, such as factors to be taken into account in establishing whether a residential tenancy agreement grants a right of occupation as a main and only place of residence and the factors to be taken into account in calculating the amount of a penalty that a landlord or agent should be liable to pay.
This is analogous to the equivalent code of practice relating to illegal working, which is brought into force by the negative procedure. For these reasons the Government believe that the new code should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in a consistent manner. The amendment has been tabled accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I have only one brief comment to make; indeed, the Minister has already touched on it with his comment about the suggestions that have been made, in at least one case, that the affirmative procedure would be more appropriate. I am not quite sure why the Minister is arguing that he thinks that the negative procedure would be equally effective. If the Government believe that the negative procedure is just as effective as the affirmative procedure presumably they see no distinction between the two. Clearly there is a distinction. Clearly Parliament believes that the affirmative procedure is a more effective one, since it requires an affirmative resolution by Parliament in support of the proposition that the Government have made. Can the Minister put forward a more convincing argument than he has as to why they will not accept that it should be by affirmative procedure and why they think it should be by negative procedure?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I suppose we could argue about this for quite a long time if we chose to. I laid out consistency with the employers’ regulations, which are very similar in content. As I mentioned in the previous debate, the thing about the negative procedure is that it is open to any Member to bring the subject matter to debate in this House. Parliamentary scrutiny is not overridden. My hope is that it will be possible, by the time we get to this phase, that we will indeed have a situation where the House is well informed with the issues involved, well informed with the evaluation of the scheme, and well informed of the way in which the scheme is intending to work. I believe that at that point government and Parliament will be confident that they can proceed and that proper scrutiny has been provided. One would have to say that this has been very carefully considered by the Government and we have come to the conclusion that the negative procedure is the appropriate form of introducing this statutory instrument.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
“( ) The code (or revised code)—
(a) may not be issued unless a draft has been laid before Parliament (prepared after considering representations under subsection (4)(b) and with or without modifications to reflect the representations), and(b) comes into force in accordance with provision made by order of the Secretary of State.”
Baroness Masham of Ilton
“Exemption of charging for primary medical services where charging is not cost-effective or poses a risk to public health
(1) Section 182 of the National Health Service Act 2006 (remission and payment of charges) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1), insert—
“(2) Insofar as any regulations under section 175 provide for charges to be made for the provision of primary medical services, they shall include provision for the remission in full of any charge that falls below the minimum threshold of service cost.
(3) In subsection (2), the “minimum threshold of service cost” shall be the cost to the provider of primary medical services below which no charge is to be made for the provision of those services.
(4) Where regulations under section 175 provide for a charge to be made for the provision of primary medical services, the provider of those services may waive the charge where he or she considers that the cost of recovering the charge is not economical or where the consequences of charging may put the public health at risk.””
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 52 is to do with public health protection. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, spoke to this amendment, for which I was very grateful as unfortunately I had a long-standing commitment which I had to attend. The noble Baroness, like me, is passionate about health safety and knows that the Bill may cause danger to the health of the nation. Some people who have not paid the health levy may not seek help when they become ill because they fear being reported to the authorities and they may not have the money for tests and medication.
I am particularly concerned because, with the resistance to antibiotics and antivirals, diseases may be spread when people leave treatment too late. If they think they have to pay for medication, they will not go to primary healthcare for diagnosis. What will be the point?
As it is, it is very difficult to find some homeless people who need screening and I congratulate the organisation Find and Treat. I thank both Ministers for the recent meeting we had with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It is important that departments work together over this complex matter with Public Health England. This amendment is to do with public health and cost-effectiveness.
I declare an interest as an officer of the APPG on Primary Care and Public Health and the groups on HIV and tuberculosis.
The purpose of the amendment is to provide an exemption from NHS charges where the cost of imposing and recovering a charge is not cost-effective or where the imposition of a charge constitutes a risk to public health. Doctors of the World supports this amendment, as do other health organisations.
In its response to last year’s consultation, the Royal College of General Practitioners made clear that it,
“opposes any change to the eligibility rules for migrants accessing GP services”.
Among the reasons given for its opposition were risks to public health and the imposition of new administrative burdens. Dr Mark Porter, the chair of the BMA council, has described the proposed charges as, “impractical, uneconomic and inefficient”. The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges emphasised in its response to the consultation that any proposals adopted,
“should not … create a bureaucratic process and burden that outweighs any tangible benefits”.
The amendment does not prevent charging but provides some flexibility within the proposed system to make it more cost-effective. The requirement to set a,
“minimum threshold of service cost”,
introduced in proposed new subsections (2) and (3) of Section 182 of the National Health Service Act 2006, achieves this. It requires the Secretary of State to stipulate a figure in regulations. If the cost of providing primary care falls below the stipulated figure, there is to be no charge. Similarly, if the provider of primary care considers that it will not be cost-effective to recover the charge, the provider may waive the charge. This would be achieved by the amendment in proposed new subsection (4) to Section 182 of the National Health Service Act 2006. Section 182 concerns exemptions from charges, including NHS charges to be made under Section 175, to which Clause 34(2) of the Bill refers. To this extent, the amendment responds to the concerns of the Royal College of General Practitioners, the BMA council and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. The Department of Health has acknowledged that,
“the administrative cost may outweigh the recoverable charges for frequently used but relatively inexpensive services”.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that the charging arrangements are not ones for this Bill. I simply want to say that many of the concerns voiced by the noble Baroness are ones that we share. We had amendments on issues around this at the previous stage, and we look forward to discussing how arrangements brought in by the Department of Health will be implemented. However, I realise that that is a matter for another day.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, I very much hope that the Minister will have a deep discussion with his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, from the Department of Health, not necessarily about every single word of this quite lengthy amendment but about the general questions that it raises. I have in my hand a letter from the president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Richard Thompson, which was not one of those colleges mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, but which raises serious questions about the public health implications unless we can look very carefully at them in the short while before Third Reading.
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who has played a crucial role in the whole area of sexual diseases, particularly AIDS, would bear out the argument made by Sir Richard. The major point he makes, and it is a very important one, is that there is considerable evidence that people who are invited to clinics, particularly the Doctors of the World Clinic in east London, to be tested for very dangerous and infectious diseases such as AIDS and drug-resistant tuberculosis—which is growing rapidly and now becoming a significant international threat to the good health even of people in relatively healthy countries such as our own—will see even relatively limited financial barriers as reasons not to attend. One of the prime difficulties is that when somebody attends a primary care facility, which is still generally available, or an A&E clinic and is referred on for testing to a hospital or another A&E clinic the real danger is that they will find this a reason not to attend. One has to accept that many people do not want to know what may be wrong with them. They are frightened of learning the results so any kind of hindrance is used as an excuse for not going.
The House will know, because it has had many discussions on infectious diseases and among its Members contains many experts in the field, the lethal consequences of people with AIDS or drug-resistant tuberculosis moving among the community where they live without being aware of the very serious, often lethal, consequences of passing on that infection. Sir Richard points out in his letter to me that one experience of that east London clinic is precisely that. There is a very rapid multiplying consequence of people not knowing what they have or knowing it and continuing to act as if they do not have to be treated. I simply plead with the House, from a non-partisan point of view, to look very closely at this amendment and consider what can best be done about it, in the interests of every citizen of this country and overseas visitors, to ensure that every possible step will be taken to ensure that highly infectious diseases are not passed on to innocent passers-by, friends or members of the family.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on speaking so powerfully on behalf of a vulnerable group. This is an important amendment. I spoke on this issue at Second Reading and I am sorry to have missed the Committee stage, when I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave another response, but I am still not satisfied that the Government have taken a serious interest in this. When I spoke at Second Reading the report of Médecins du Monde seemed to me very compelling. Has the Minister seen it? The noble Baroness quoted several authorities and I will not repeat them but I think this has serious consequences, not only for that group but for the population at large, especially in the field of mental health.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, when we look at the Second Reading and Committee debates, one area of the Bill where there has been the least clarity for noble Lords is in trying to understand the implications beyond what are now Clauses 37 and 38. It is not necessarily the words of the clauses but some of the rhetoric that the Government have used in describing the Bill, such as “health tourism”. I know that there are expectations of what this Bill was going to do and concerns about the implications. I think there is an opportunity for the noble Lord. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is to be congratulated on bringing this forward to give some clarity to what is involved. I have had several e-mails and letters from organisations that are extremely concerned. They are not trying to scaremonger; they are trying to understand the public health implications.
In a meeting I had with noble Lord, he was very helpful in explaining that he did not feel that there would be any public health implications and that people who needed treatment would receive it at the point at which they needed it. However, I think a little clarity would be helpful. The two issues of the public health of the nation and cost-effectiveness have exercised your Lordships in looking at this matter. If the Minister can bring some clarity to the two issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, it would be extremely helpful and perhaps helpful to the wider audience outside your Lordships’ House, who have genuine concerns and are trying to ensure that they operate in the best interests of public health and within the law. There is considerable confusion as to what that will be.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I agree that this is a very useful opportunity to inform the House of where we are on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, will understand that the provisions in the Bill are one thing and the wider provisions for implementing health service charging are another. We had a really useful meeting with my noble friend Lord Howe where a number of noble Lords present came to talk about this issue. I think noble Lords will agree he is very much focused on the full implications of any changes. I reassure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that Médecins du Monde corresponds with me on a fairly regular basis so I know what its concerns are and unfortunately it was not at the meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If it had been I think it would have understood better the way in which the health service reforms were being taken forward. The other thing which it would certainly have picked up is that it is absolutely clear that treatment for infectious public health conditions is free to all and will remain so. We should just make that clear; I hope that it reassures my noble friend Lady Williams and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham.
As we discussed at length when we were talking about this issue, any exemptions from the NHS charging of short-term visitors and illegal migrants are not really a matter for the Home Office. This is not a provision that is being enacted in the Bill and is not a question on which the Home Office would make a decision. Exemptions are a matter for the Department of Health. I know that they are being considered very sensitively. Let us not forget that, within the devolved remit, while there is one United Kingdom for immigration purposes there are four national health services within the United Kingdom. It is not for me from this Dispatch Box to speak on their behalf. I have no wish to cause a constitutional crisis by inadvertently taking over responsibilities for which I have no responsibility.
My noble friend Lord Howe has agreed to meet again with noble Lords. I think that everybody felt that that was a helpful meeting. I want to keep everybody in the loop; I can act as a facilitator in this respect. When my noble friend’s department has developed more detailed proposals for reforming NHS overseas visitor charging arrangements—and it is that charging which is being looked at in particular, for people on short visits here—this will provide the appropriate time and context for discussions on the NHS charging arrangements for these groups.
Going back to the beginning, I confirm that treatment for infectious public health conditions is free for all and will remain so. I hope that that is a big reassurance. Given that reassurance, alongside our existing commitment that GP and nurse consultations will remain free to all and that that is not limited to the first consultation, I hope that the noble Baroness will indeed withdraw her amendment. I look forward to having further discussions with her and my noble friend Lord Howe in the future.
Baroness Masham of Ilton
My Lords, I thank the Minister and all who have supported the amendment. What is confusing is that Clauses 37 and 38 cover the new charges and restrictions of healthcare access in this Bill. Therefore, it is surely an immigration and health matter. Therefore, unless there is a combination working together on this complex matter, there will be confusion and people may fall through the net. I hope that I have helped to get the message across that public health and protection are vital, especially when dealing with vulnerable people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rosser
“Recruitment agencies: local workforce
In section 5 of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (general regulations), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) The Secretary of State may by order prohibit United Kingdom based agencies, as defined in this section, from including only people not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom as their clients.””
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving again an amendment which we moved in Committee which we consider to be key and ought to be in the Bill. Clauses 43 and 44 deal with the issue of work and would, first, streamline the processes by which an employer can object to or appeal against a civil penalty by requiring employers to raise an objection to the Secretary of State before making an appeal to the civil court. Secondly, it would make it easier to enforce unpaid civil penalty debts in the civil courts.
Immigration is a welcome and important part of our life and our country’s success over the years owes much to the people who have come here from around the world and have helped to make it a better place. However, we are all aware of the fact that immigration can bring with it certain pressures and certain difficulties for our communities. The Bill does not include any of the important work-related measures which we have been calling for, and we tabled a number of amendments for Committee stage as a means of raising these issues. Amendment 53 has the aim of ending the practice of some recruitment agencies excluding local workers.
To state what I hope is obvious, many or most recruitment agencies are a great asset to the communities in which they work, helping employers and potential employees find work, and keeping local economies in particular ticking over. However, there has been a problem with some employment agencies effectively taking on only foreign workers and excluding British people from their books.
That has become more of an issue because, over the past couple of decades there has been a significant growth in agency employment; I understand that the figures show a 500% increase in agency workers between the mid-1980s and 2007. A look at the figures shows that migrants are increasingly overrepresented within agency work, particularly at the lower end, with A8 accession country migrants constituting the largest single group of agency workers. In some sectors—the meat and poultry processing industry, for example—there are examples which have come to light of British workers facing difficulty registering for work with some agencies which exclusively supply migrant workers, generally eastern European nationals.
We have the evidence of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which conducted a major survey in 2010 and found that one-third of agencies confirmed that they had acted unlawfully in sometimes supplying workers by judging what nationality the processing firm would prefer, or responding to direct requests often based on stereotypes about the perceived dependability of particular nationalities. There has been the example of an organisation advertising cleaning services with a message saying that it has a thorough vetting system for all its cleaners, and then going on to say that they all come from Poland and that several of them have had extensive cleaning experience in the United Kingdom. In 2010, we had the case of a British supermarket supplier accused of discriminating against local workers after insisting that new recruits had to speak fluent Polish. The firm, I believe, was one of Asda’s biggest suppliers—it was not Asda itself—and it maintained that the requirement was necessary to ensure that all employees could understand the same instructions. The condition was included in an e-mail advert sent out on behalf of the firm and dispatched to hundreds of potential applicants on that particular agency’s books. The advert read:
“Immediate factory work available! If you are available or have any friends available, work is starting tomorrow for induction training. Ongoing factory work (meat production) for 4-5 months, shifts are 7am-5pm or 9am-7pm. Transport provided. Applicants must speak Polish”.
The latter sentence would appear to indicate that it was asked for a certain category of potential employee, since I do not know that Polish is spoken very much in this country, apart from among Polish people.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to reinforce that point. In the previous election in Stoke, I found people complaining bitterly that you had to speak Polish and that all the health and safety instructions were in Polish in certain factories. There are other such stories, so it is a serious point.
Lord Rosser
I thank my noble friend for that helpful intervention. The idea that, in core sectors of our economy, recruitment agencies should exclude local workers and make a virtue of being able to offer—this is often the reason it is done—cheaper, more flexible and allegedly more compliant staff than those available locally is surely wrong. It cannot be fair on UK workers who do not have the opportunity to compete for those jobs, and it is certainly not going to help us rebuild our economy.
As I understand it, currently the only way for action to be taken is for an individual to bring about a discrimination case through an employment tribunal or for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to bring a compliance order. That is because recruitment agencies—or, rather, the recruitment agencies concerned; I do not want to suggest that it is all of them—are not legally prevented from acting in this particular way. We need to strengthen the law so that agencies are not able to operate such practices, either formally or informally. If this kind of practice is going to continue, then we need to start enforcing that law properly, with more prosecutions for agencies that flout discrimination laws. That is why we have tabled this amendment again on Report. In replying to this point in Committee, the Minister, on behalf of the Government, acknowledged that,
“there is a problem with a small number of unscrupulous employment agencies that source labour exclusively from overseas, particularly eastern Europe”.—[Official Report, 17/3/14; col. 19.]
I believe the Minister said that he was “sympathetic” to the aims of the amendment. I am not sure that sympathy, although welcome, is really enough because sympathy does not put right what is surely a wrong that ought to be rectified.
Our amendment gives the Secretary of State the power,
“to prohibit United Kingdom based agencies, as defined in this section, from including only people not ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom as their clients”.
It is an order-making power, and the principle that it is seeking to establish is clear. If the Government are sympathetic to the terms of the amendment, it would of course be open to them to set out more of the detail in the order to ensure that it achieves its aims. Alternatively, if the Government accept the principle of our amendment, they could come back with their own amendment at Third Reading if they do not agree with its specific wording. Of course, we had an example of that happening very recently with the Defence Reform Bill, where an amendment was discussed on Report. The Government clearly did not like the wording but they accepted the principle and came back with their own amendment at Third Reading, which was duly carried. So that is a very recent example of the Government saying that they agree with the principle of an amendment, perhaps do not like its wording and agree to come back with their own wording at a later stage in the Bill, in this case Third Reading.
Therefore I say, simply, that there is a problem, and, as I understand it, the Government recognise that. This amendment gives the Government the opportunity to act now to rectify this problem by either accepting this amendment or, if they do not like its wording, by agreeing to come back with their own amendment on Third Reading to address the issue I have raised. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the intention of this amendment. It is entirely wrong that local people in particular, but also many other people resident in this country, should be bypassed in the recruitment process and not even have the opportunity to seek work. I declare an interest as chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission already referred to. We have done some work in the past on the meat-processing industry, where such practices were found—not prevalent, but found. We intend also to do some work on the cleaning industry.
However, I am not sure that the amendment as it stands will address the problem adequately. That is to say, it refers to recruitment agencies located in this country. It could very readily be bypassed simply by subcontracting with recruitment agencies elsewhere. Also, there are occasions where we wish to enable employers to recruit overseas exclusively. Think of schools that seek native speakers to teach French. They probably want to be able to advertise in France, to French students, and we do not wish to prohibit that. I will just echo the point that, if the Minister thinks something can be done, it will not be through this amendment as it stands. However, the avoidance of both unfair discrimination and the appearance of it is surely an important issue.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has brought this back, and it has been very useful to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve, about her take on this issue. She raises some of the subtle things at the edge of any blanket restriction that might be made.
I said right at the beginning when we debated this issue in Committee that the Opposition and the Government are not very far apart at all in this area. It is a matter of time and place rather than the detail of the amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, accepts that the amendment may not be quite perfect. I cannot commit to come back on this issue at Third Reading. There is likely to be an announcement very shortly on this whole issue, so it would be more appropriate to wait until that announcement has been made, as it will make clear what the Government’s position is. I do not think that the Opposition or any other noble Lords will find themselves very far from the Government on this issue.
To look at where we are, the Government are committed to protecting the rights of UK workers. We have said that, and as I said in Committee, the Government have already taken tougher action against abuse of the national minimum wage, both as regards its enforcement and by increasing the financial penalty for breaches. We are taking a more robust approach to the employers of illegal workers, including through a doubling of the maximum civil penalty to £20,000, which has now been approved by both Houses.
We are ensuring greater collaboration across Government to increase our “enforcement reach” and the range of sanctions that can be brought to bear against exploitative employment practices. Furthermore, the Government have commissioned a report by the Migration Advisory Committee into the causes of low-skilled migration and its social impacts.
That is why we are trying to look at the bigger picture. The amendment identifies a particular problem—and I acknowledge that it is a problem—but there is a bigger picture: why is so much of migration into this country in low-skilled jobs? We know that the social impacts of this cause concern across wider communities. We are taking action to prevent abuse of our public services and benefits systems by migrants, including those who come from the European Economic Area. As I have said previously, employment levels have risen, since this Government came into office, by 1.3 million, of which 78% is accounted for by UK nationals. However, I recognise there is a problem with a small number of unscrupulous employment agencies that source labour exclusively from overseas, particularly eastern Europe, and subject their workers to exploitative conditions. We have to acknowledge that.
We are sympathetic to the intentions behind this amendment but, as it stands, it would not achieve its aims at all. It will need very careful review because an agency could evade its scope and be in the clear simply by signing up a single UK recruit. That will not address the problem which the noble Lord has brought to the attention of the House. The ordinary residence test is very weak and easy to pass. However, more does need to be done to tackle such unfair recruitment practices, a view which I think noble Lords generally share. Ministers are actively considering how best to protect British workers from this type of discrimination and, as I have said, the House may expect announcements to be made very shortly on this issue. In the light of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I am disappointed by the Minister’s reply. In Committee, he said that,
“more should be done to tackle these types of unfair recruitment practices. Ministers will actively consider how best to protect British workers from this type of discrimination and we will seek to bring forward proposals shortly”.—[Official Report, 17/3/14; col. 19.]
We do not seem to have made any progress at all. The Minister is clearly not prepared to pick up what was inherent in my suggestion: that I would be happy to withdraw my amendment if he gave a commitment to come back with the Government’s own amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Hamwee
I appreciate that I have not spoken in this debate but colleagues around me are confirming what I heard, which was that the Minister told us—for my part, I rather fear it—that we might hear shortly from the Government. Never in the years I have been in this House have I known “shortly” to be as short as a week or two. I have been listening carefully and I understand the problem, which everyone who has spoken on this has acknowledged. I wonder whether to have come back at this stage or be prepared to come back within a couple of sitting days, as it would be at Third Reading, would do justice to the severity of the problem that has been articulated.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I may remind the House what I also said, which was that the Minister used the word “shortly” when we discussed it in Committee. This is not the first time that he has said “shortly”. I think that shortly is a rather longer period of time than the noble Baroness has just suggested. The other issue is that the Government have no doubt given much time to considering the provisions in the Immigration Bill as a whole. It is surprising that they do not appear to have given the same priority to the issue addressed by the amendment about the activities and practices of some recruitment agencies which do nothing to enable us to have a reasoned debate on immigration in this country. I think the Minister knows that that is an issue. We need to address today’s problems now and not at some unspecified time in the future, which really is all that the Minister has been able to say. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
“Permission to work
(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3(9) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
“(10) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must have regard to the following.
(11) Rules must provide for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment and that permission must be granted if—
(a) a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it was recorded, or(b) an individual makes further submissions which raise asylum grounds and a decision on that fresh claim or to refuse to treat such further submissions as a fresh claim has not been taken within six months of the date on which they were recorded.(12) Permission for a person seeking asylum to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.””
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, full employment with a job for every person has been the ideal of every party here over generations. When I look at the Labour Benches I remember people such as Keir Hardie and those who, in 1908, wanted their party to be one which united the workers of the world:
“Workers of the world, unite!”.
Then, of course, being on these Benches, I remember the name—as a Welshman would—of David Lloyd George, who in 1928 published his “Yellow Book”, followed by We Can Conquer Unemployment. Looking at the Conservative Benches, we know that only last week George Osborne said that the aspiration was that every person should have a job and that we should have full employment.
Every person has potential. They have skills and dreams, so I suggest that it should be our direction in this House to make sure that we enable as many as possible of those dreams to be fulfilled. We should not shatter those dreams. Even those who are asylum seekers among us—they, too, have hopes and dreams. They are people just like us. There are 6,200 asylum seekers lawfully present in the UK who, because of present regulations, are denied that right—and more often than not, it is not their fault. It is because of the backlog of applications. So they get perhaps £36 a week, which is half the minimum amount recommended for UK citizens, and they are given an Azure card which forces them to buy their goods in the more expensive stores rather than the cheaper ones and the corner shops. Even if nothing else happens as a result of this debate, I hope that the Minister will look at the state of the Azure card. People should be able to buy their goods in the most competitive places.
Of course, some people will turn to crime or, like the Morecambe Bay cockle pickers, who were not asylum seekers, will have to work for £1 an hour. Those Chinese workers were caused to take on employment that destroyed their lives. I suggest that the present situation is not fit for purpose. What can we do? We can keep people in poverty and destitution for 12 months, which is the present statutory period. I would remind noble Lords opposite that it was in July 2002 that the term was increased from six months to 12 months. However, we could change the period—and, indeed we are the only European country not to have done so. We could reduce it to six months, and that is all I am asking for in this amendment.
There is no evidence whatever that doing this would blur the boundary between economic migration and asylum or that it would act as a pull factor. Other European countries do not find that to be the case. Also, there is no evidence that such a change would lead to unfounded claims. A pilot would show that. I have a Private Member’s Bill which requests this change, and possibly it will have to be reintroduced in the next Session of Parliament. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment I am moving today—or, if not, that I will be assured of the Government’s encouragement if this proposal is presented in the form of a Private Member’s Bill in the coming Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am pleased to speak as a co-sponsor of Amendment 54, and I shall recap briefly the case that was made in Committee. The right to work is a human right enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Social policy in this country is premised on the importance of paid work as both a primary responsibility and the primary contribution that people can make. I drew attention to the damaging effects on asylum seekers and any children, and I cited evidence from a cross-parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, of which I was a member, and a Freedom From Torture report which showed the hardship resulting from the policy of not allowing asylum seekers to take paid work for 12 months.
During the debate the Minister challenged the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, when she talked about people having to live on £5 a day by pointing out that families with children receive more than that. However, my understanding is that in 2013, 80% of applications for asylum were made by single adults, so the figure of £5 a day is in fact the typical sum on which someone has to live. That sum has been frozen since April 2011, and I wonder whether the Minister could explain the justification for freezing the level of support provided for one of the most vulnerable groups in our country. I also wonder whether he would be able to live on £5 a day, because I could not.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has one of the most prophetic voices in this House. He can see so far ahead of us that he can see someone in government accepting his amendment—just over the horizon but not yet. I am most impressed by his fortitude because this is an issue at which all the refugee agencies and people working with refugees have looked again and again. They have presented evidence that still has not convinced the Government because they have not got rid of the backlog. As soon as they have got rid of the backlog they will seriously look at this kind of proposal. They are therefore worried about the consequences of opening up what they see as an economic draw. I do not do so and I am absolutely convinced that the noble Lord is right about this, but these are things to come.
Perhaps I may again bring in the issue of assisted voluntary return that we discussed on Tuesday, when the Minister kindly responded to a question about why it was being withdrawn, because it is very pertinent to this subject. He kindly also offered to write to me about that. I formally accept the idea that he writes to me fully.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I cannot resist speaking on this because I so admire what the Government are doing in encouraging people in this country into work: the work of the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the Secretary of State on the introduction of universal credit. We may have concerns about the details of this policy but I think we all recognise that it is vital to encourage people off benefit and into work wherever possible.
I have a very long-standing acquaintance who, unfortunately, has mental health problems. I know him very well indeed. Thanks to the fact that he is taking benefit, he is obliged to work in a charity shop for half a day, four days a week. While this is very much against his wishes, he is being obliged to have contact with other human beings, which, I think, is a way to his recovery. I have to reflect on how deeply demoralising it must be for these people not to be allowed to work and what the consequences may be for their children to have their parents becoming depressed because they have nothing useful to do in their lives.
I hesitate to come in without being better informed about this particular debate, but I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and other speakers have said, and I hope the Minister may be able to offer some comfort to them.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, we need prophets and optimists, and I am glad that we have at least one.
I very much support what my noble friend has been urging us so consistently to do: for reasons of integration; for individuals to keep up skills and be able to practise their English in the context of work; and, of course, for the financial reasons that the noble Baroness has dealt with. Most of all, work is valuable for self-respect and mental health. I do not put the two situations on a par with one another but clearly we all value working: there are a lot of noble Lords in the Chamber this afternoon, and who have been in this building, who could probably have been taking advantage of what I understand has been quite nice weather outside but have chosen to spend the day working.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, when the Government brought in this law, withdrawing the right of asylum seekers who have been here for more than six months to work, I do not know what they intended to achieve, or what they have achieved so far by having that law. It does not prevent any people coming into the country. It is not an immigration issue at all. We are talking about people who are already in this country, asylum seekers whose applications are being dealt with. Through no fault of their own, their applications are taking longer than six months. We are still saying that they should not be able to work.
This law drives people into deep poverty. They are more vulnerable to exploitation. They should have a right to work, like everyone else, and they should be able to feel proud that they are not living on handouts but working for their families. This is one good thing that the children can be proud of as well. Therefore, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Roberts should be supported. I support it. I hope that the Minister will look into this and be sympathetic to the cause of the asylum seekers.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, I briefly add my support because, although I have listened very carefully to the argument made by the Minister, I genuinely do not understand why people should not be allowed to work for perhaps six months because of the backlog of cases. Perhaps there should be a time limit, so that if someone has not heard about their case then they have the right to work. However, we must think very carefully about what the implications of that may be. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, maybe something should be put around that to keep the criteria very visible to the Home Office.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I think the whole House will admire the heroic efforts of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno for making just one more try at this issue. I have listened very carefully to the arguments in favour of allowing asylum seekers to work if their asylum claim is not determined after six months instead of the current period of 12 months. I am not convinced that it is sensible. In the Government’s view, the proposed change clearly creates a risk that some people will make unfounded asylum claims in order to take advantage of the more generous employment opportunities. Indeed, the amendment as drafted would enable the person to take any employment of their choice, rather than be restricted to those on the shortage occupation list published by the Home Office.
I agree with my noble friend and with the House about the importance of being able to work. Although paid work might not be permitted except in certain circumstances, voluntary work is allowed, as I explained on the previous occasion when we debated this. My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about the level of support provided. I remind the House that two levels of support are provided, to cover asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers. The noble Baroness asked me to justify keeping the support rate the same since 2011. The Government conducted a full review of asylum support levels last year, in June 2013. The review concluded that the payment levels were adequate to meet essential living needs. They are only to meet essential living needs.
Many noble Lords asked why we do not let failed asylum seekers work so that they can support themselves. It is important to maintain a distinction between economic migration and asylum. Failed asylum seekers, whose further asylum-related submissions have been outstanding for at least one year, may apply for permission to work. This is in line with our obligations under the 2003 EU reception conditions directive. We have considered the merits of reducing this threshold, but such a reduction could encourage those who are not genuinely in need of protection to enter the asylum system for economic reasons.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about the assisted voluntary return package, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness said that he will write to the noble Earl on this point. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the desirability of the UK as a destination for economic migrants is not in doubt; one only has to look at some of yesterday’s newspapers. The Government have been successful at reducing non-EEA net migration but EEA migration remains high, as those who benefit from EU free movement come here looking for work. We are dealing with the imbalances in European migration. Throwing open access to the labour market as proposed by this amendment would send the wrong signals, and damage the significant progress this Government have made in controlling migration.
Baroness Manzoor
Surely the Home Office would be able to tell the difference between an economic migrant and an asylum seeker. That is why it has the caseload.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, if they are a genuine asylum seeker, in some cases it will be easy to determine that they have a good case. Once asylum is granted, people are able to work straightaway. However, if the case is difficult, possibly because the asylum seeker has made it difficult, unfortunately it takes considerably more time to determine the application.
As I was saying before my noble friend intervened, we do not believe that it is worth taking a risk with the progress that we have made so far. It is true that some asylum claims take too long to consider, but the Home Office is addressing the issue. In year 2012-13, 78% of claims received a decision within six months.
It may be generally true that unfounded claims can be considered faster than other claims, but they still need to be considered individually, which takes time and resources. Consideration of these claims therefore slows down consideration of genuine claims, at the expense of people who need international protection.
The current policy strikes the right balance. Asylum seekers are provided with support and accommodation if they are destitute. If their asylum claims are undetermined after 12 months for reasons outside their control, they can apply for permission to work. This is a fair and reasonable policy and we should keep to it. In the light of these points, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
I thank the Minister for his reply and say how terribly disappointed I am, even though we have brought this issue up time and again, that that there is no movement whatever on the part of the Conservative Front Bench. I note that the Labour Front Bench has not intervened in this debate and am also very sad for that; I wish that it would join us in this campaign. I will not test the feeling of the House today, but I propose to bring forward a Private Member’s Bill again in the next Session of Parliament. I therefore, most reluctantly, beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2014
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the draft order laid before the House on 31 March be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are determined to do all they can to minimise the threat from terrorism to the UK and our interests abroad. Additionally, it is important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs. We propose to add Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis (ABM), which is also known as Ansar Jerusalem; Al Murabitun; and Ansar Al Sharia-Tunisia (AAS-T) to the list of international terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. This is the 14th proscription order under that Act.
Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is currently concerned in terrorism, as defined by that Act. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors. These are: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom and to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite support for or arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation. Additionally, it is an offence to wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.
Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe only after a thorough review of the available relevant information and evidence on the organisation. This includes open source material, intelligence material and advice that reflects consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Home Secretary is supported in her decision-making process by the Cross-Whitehall Proscription Review Group. Decisions to proscribe are taken with great care by the Home Secretary and it is right that the case for proscribing new organisations must be approved by both Houses.
Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that ABM, Al Murabitun and AAS-T are currently concerned in terrorism. Noble Lords will appreciate that I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a brief summary of their activities. ABM is an al-Qaeda-inspired militant Islamist group based in the northern Sinai region of Egypt. The group is said to recruit within Egypt and abroad and aims to create an Egyptian state ruled by Sharia law. ABM is assessed to be responsible for a number of attacks on security forces in Egypt since 2011. The attacks appear to have increased since the overthrow of the Morsi government in July 2013. The group’s reach goes beyond the Sinai, with the group claiming responsibility for a number of attacks in Cairo and cross-border attacks against Israel. ABM has undertaken attacks using vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices and surface-to-air missiles. Examples of attacks for which the group has claimed responsibility include: in September 2013 an attack on the Egyptian Interior Minister in which a UK national was seriously injured; an attack on a police compound in Mansoura on 24 December 2013, killing at least 16 people, including 14 police officers; and an attack on a tourist bus in which three South Koreans and their Egyptian driver died on 16 January 2014.
Al Murabitun resulted from a merger of two al-Qaeda in the Maghreb—AQ-M—splinter groups that are active in Mali and Algeria, the Movement for the Unity and Jihad in West Africa—MUJWA—and Mokhtar Belmokhtar’s group, the Al-Mulathamine Battalion, which included the commando element “Those Who Sign in Blood”. The merger was announced in a public statement in August 2013. Al Murabitun aspires to unite Muslims from the Nile to the Atlantic and has affirmed its loyalty to the al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and the emir of the Afghan Taliban, Mullah Omar. Al Murabitun’s first statement threatened France and its allies in the region and called on Muslims to target French interests everywhere. Belmokhtar has announced that he will not continue to lead the group in order to allow a new generation of jihadist leaders to come to the fore. Reports indicate that the new commander has fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the international intervention in Afghanistan.
Although the group has not claimed responsibility for any terrorist attacks since the merger, both precursor groups have participated in a number of terrorist attacks and kidnapping for ransom during the past 13 months. Belmokhtar’s group was responsible for the attack against the In Amenas gas facility in January 2013 that resulted in the death of more than 30 people including Britons. In May 2013 the two groups targeted a military barracks in Agadez, Niger and a uranium mine in Arlit which supplies French nuclear reactors. The suicide attack in Agadez resulted in the deaths of at least 20 people.
Despite previously separating themselves from AQ-M, citing leadership issues and the desire to expand their control, both precursor groups continued to co-operate and fight alongside AQ-M fighters in Mali and other regions of West Africa. This activity has continued since the merger.
The Sahel region continues to see high threats of kidnap and terrorist attacks. Hostages are currently held in the Sahel and surrounding regions, which includes Algeria, Cameroon, Libya and Nigeria. The Canadians designated Belmokhtar’s group in November 2013 and the US designated it in December 2013, specifying Al Murabitun as an alias.
Ansar Al Sharia-Tunisia—AAS-T—is a radical Islamist group founded in April 2011. The group aims to establish Sharia law in Tunisia and eliminate western influence. Between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals may be attracted to rallies organised by the movement. The group is ideologically aligned to al-Qaeda—AQ—and has links to al-Qaeda affiliated groups. It is reported that the group announced its loyalty to AQ-M in September 2013.
AAS-T’s leader, Seif Allah Ibn Hussein, also known as Abu Ayadh al-Tunisi, is a former AQ veteran combatant in Afghanistan. He has been hiding following the issue of a warrant for his arrest relating to an allegation of inciting the attack on the US embassy in Tunis that killed four people in September 2012.
Salafists believed to have links with AAS-T are assessed to be responsible for the attacks in October 2011 on a television station and, in June 2012, an attack on an art exhibit. AAS-T is assessed to be responsible for the attacks on the US embassy and the American school in Tunis in September 2012. The Tunisian Government believe that AAS-T was responsible for the assassination of two coalition assembly members: Chokri Belaid in February 2013 and Mohamed Brahmi in July 2013.
Additionally, elements of the group are believed to have been involved in the attempted suicide attack, in October 2013, at a hotel in a tourist resort in Sousse where a significant number of British tourists were staying. More than 400,000 British tourists visited Tunisia last year. The Tunisian Government listed AAS-T as a terrorist group in 2013 and the US did so in January 2014.
Subject to the agreement of this House and the House of Commons, this proscription will come into force on Friday 4 April.
In conclusion, I believe it is right that we add Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Al Murabitun and Ansar Al Sharia-Tunisia to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, this is a serious issue. The order that the Minister has moved was agreed in the House of Commons yesterday and, as he has said, if it is agreed by this House today it will come into effect tomorrow. I thank him for the letter that he sent to my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon on 31 March, which set out the case for the proscription of the three groups named by the Minister, and he has of course repeated that case in moving the order today. This is an issue of national security, and we are happy to accept the Government’s assurances on the basis that all three groups seem to have been involved in terrorism at the highest end of seriousness, including some directed at our citizens and allies.
There are, however, two points that I wish to raise about the issue of proscription, though not specifically about the three groups in question; as I indicated, we are happy to accept and agree the order. I am sure that the two issues will not come entirely as a surprise to the Minister. As I understand it from what was said in the Commons yesterday, there are apparently 52 international and 14 Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations that are already proscribed, and I gather that between 2001 and the end of March last year 32 people have been charged with proscription-related offences as a primary offence in Great Britain and 16 have been convicted, so there are a number of organisations on the list.
I am sure that the Minister will not be too surprised if I say that it appears that one organisation is not yet on the list: Hizb ut-Tahrir, which is of course the one that the Prime Minister said when he was leader of the Opposition that he thought ought to be banned. It is not clear why after all this time that organisation has not been proscribed if apparently, in the Prime Minister’s view, the case was so clear-cut a number of years ago when he announced his personal view of what he would do. I would be grateful if the Minister could throw any light on that, purely in the sense of whether this organisation is likely to be banned or not. What are the Government doing on this at the moment? Have they come to the conclusion that it does not require to be banned, or is it after all these years an issue that they are still considering? They seem to be taking a remarkably long time to come to a conclusion.
The other issue that I would like to raise, and it is the final one that I want to talk about, is the issue of de-proscription. This was raised in the House of Commons yesterday but I want to put a question about it to the Minister. Obviously we have a procedure for, quite rightly, putting organisations that are threats to national security on the list so that action can be taken. I have referred already to the figures that the Minister in the House of Commons gave about the number of organisations currently proscribed. My question about the issue of de-proscription is on the understanding that the only group that has ever been de-proscribed obtained that through judicial review. It is of interest to raise this issue because, according to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the Home Office was at one point considering an annual review of the proscribed list to see which groups still met the criteria.
That independent reviewer suggests—I do not know whether it is true—that there is no current evidence of terrorist involvement, even in this century, for some proscribed organisations. According to the independent reviewer’s website, last summer the Home Office had compiled a list of up to 14 groups that no longer met the criteria for proscription and the independent reviewer has been calling for the annual review of proscribed groups to which I have referred and which it was claimed that the Home Office was at one point considering.
In conclusion, since it appears that the Home Office now wishes to go down a different road for de-proscription for individuals or organisations, why is it not in favour of at least a regular review of the proscribed groups to see if they still meet the criteria that necessitate their being on the proscribed list in the light of an apparent view—whether right or wrong—of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation that a number of organisations on that list no longer meet the criteria for remaining on it?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support for this order. I will do my best to answer his questions. As he said, there was a lengthy debate yesterday in the House of Commons where my honourable friend James Brokenshire presented this order for approval by that House. The noble Lord asked first about Hizb ut-Tahrir. Hizb ut-Tahrir has been considered by the Home Secretary. The Government have significant concerns about it and we are continuing to monitor its activities very closely. Of course, individuals are still subject to general criminal law. We will seek to ensure that the group and groups like it cannot operate without challenge in public places in this country. We will not tolerate secretive meetings behind closed doors on premises funded by the taxpayer. We will ensure that civic organisations are made aware of this organisation and groups like it, the names under which they operate and the ways in which they go about their business. I can comment no further on that organisation.
As the noble Lord will well know, de-proscription is by application. While we keep a watch—and it is quite proper that we do—on organisations about which we are concerned, it is up to organisations to apply for de-proscription. Under the current regime they can write to the Home Secretary and request that she considers that they should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations, and they should state the grounds under which they should be de-proscribed. The Home Secretary is required to make a decision on that application within 90 days. I hope the noble Lord will understand that there is a proper mechanism for dealing with de-proscription. However, it is not a proactive one. It is one made by application.
Lord Rosser
The noble Lord will accept that if you are not meant to be a member of that organisation at the time you apply it is a bit of risk applying for it to be de-proscribed—by definition you are almost admitting to be associated with the organisation that you are not allowed to be associated with.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That is the procedure, my Lords. That is the consideration that the Home Secretary makes. I think the noble Lord will understand that you do not get on the proscribed list without the Government having real concerns about the aims and objectives of the organisation. I ask the noble Lord to accept that assurance.
Lord Rosser
I hope that the Minister would accept that my comments have been prompted to some extent by what the independent reviewer has claimed. I do not know whether that is true or not, but a number of organisations on the list would apparently no longer meet the criteria. I am certainly not raising it in a flippant manner—this is an issue of national security. Frankly, however, if there are organisations there and the independent reviewer is questioning whether they still meet the criteria, the effectiveness of the list is surely a factor of the organisations on it being ones that should be on it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Well, I am satisfied with the arrangements. On the question of incrimination, I can reassure the noble Lord that, in fact, if a person makes an application for a group to be de-proscribed, Section 10 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides that evidence submitted in relation to de-proscription application is not admissible in proceedings against an individual for an offence under that Act. I hope that reassures the noble Lord to some extent about the self-incrimination process of writing to the Home Secretary to apply for de-proscription.
Finally, proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping but is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned with terrorism. We are satisfied that the three groups about which we have been talking today meet that statutory test and it is appropriate in each case for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to proscribe the group. The proscription of ABM, Al Murabitun and AAS-T demonstrates our condemnation of the activities of these groups and our support for the efforts of members of the international community to tackle terrorism. On those grounds, I commend the order to the House.
Tobacco: Packaging
(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I note that we are about to have a Statement but we do not have a Minister. May I encourage the noble Lord to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes for the Front Bench to get itself a Minister?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
This is a just-in-time delivery, if I may say so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today by my honourable friend the Minister for Public Health in another place on standardised packaging of tobacco products. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the publication of Sir Cyril Chantler’s report on the standardised packaging of tobacco products.
Smoking kills nearly 80,000 people each year in England alone. One out of two long-term smokers will die of a smoking-related disease and our cancer outcomes stubbornly lag behind much of Europe. Quite apart from the enormous pressure this creates on the NHS it is a cruel waste of human potential. Yet we all know that the vast majority of smokers want to quit and, even more tragically, we also know that two-thirds of smokers become addicted before they are 18. As a nation, therefore, we should consider every effective measure we can to stop children taking up smoking in the first place.
That is why, in November last year, I asked Sir Cyril Chantler to undertake an independent review as to whether or not the introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco is likely to have an effect on public health, in particular in relation to children. Sir Cyril has presented his report to me and to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and we had the benefit of a personal briefing from Sir Cyril yesterday, in which he highlighted the key conclusions of his review.
Having reviewed Sir Cyril’s findings, I was keen to share this important report with the House without delay, as I recognise the significant interest that many Members have shown in this issue. I will of course place copies in both House Libraries. The evidence has been examined, the arguments for and against have been thoroughly explored and their merit assessed by Sir Cyril, who also visited Australia in the course of his review. I asked in particular that the report focus on the potential for standardised packaging to have an impact on the health of children.
It is clear that smoking is a disease of adolescence and we know that, across the UK, more than 200,000 children aged between 11 and 15 start smoking every year. In other words, around 600 children start smoking in the UK every day. Many of these children will grow up with a nicotine addiction that they will find extremely difficult to break. That is a tragedy for these young people, their families and for the public health of our nation. Sir Cyril points out that if this rate of smoking by children were reduced even by 2%, for example, it would mean that 4,000 fewer children take up smoking each year.
Sir Cyril’s report makes a compelling case that, if standardised packaging were introduced, it would be very likely to have a positive impact on public health and that these health benefits would include health benefits for children. The Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, has read Sir Cyril’s report and sent me a letter with her initial views. Dame Sally said:
‘The Chantler review only reinforces my beliefs of the public health gains to be achieved from standardised packaging’.
I have placed copies of Dame Sally’s letter in the House Libraries. Importantly, the report highlights that any such policy must be seen in the round, as part of a comprehensive policy of tobacco control measures. That is exactly how I see the potential for standardised packaging to work in this country.
In the light of this report and the responses to the previous consultation in 2012, I am therefore currently minded to proceed with introducing regulations to provide for standardised packaging. However, in order to ensure that that decision is properly and fully informed, I intend to publish the draft regulations, so that it is crystal clear what is intended, alongside a final, short consultation, in which I will ask, in particular, for views on anything new since the last full public consultation that is relevant to the final decision on this policy. I will announce the details about the content and timing of that very shortly but would invite those with an interest to start considering any responses they might wish to make now. The House will understand that I want to move forward as swiftly as possible, and Parliament gave us the regulation-making powers in the Act.
Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the excellent job that Sir Cyril and his team have done in preparing such a thorough analysis of the available evidence on standardised packaging of tobacco products. I believe the report will be widely acknowledged both for its forensic approach and its authoritative conclusions. We want our nation’s children to grow up happy and healthy and free from the heavy burden of disease that tobacco brings. I commend this Statement and Sir Cyril’s report to the House”.
That concludes the Statement.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I also take this opportunity to place on record the Opposition’s thanks to Sir Cyril Chantler and our congratulations on his excellent review of the public health evidence. We welcome much of what the Minister said, but I am sure that we share with other noble Lords who have long campaigned on this issue our frustration at the prospect of yet another consultation—albeit on regulations—especially when Sir Cyril's review is so clear and unequivocal about the impact that standardised packaging would have.
We know that the case for the introduction of standardised packaging is, as ever, urgent. The cost to the NHS of treating diseases caused by smoking is approximately £2.7 billion a year. Two-thirds of adult smokers took up smoking as children. One in two long-term smokers dies prematurely as a result of smoking-related diseases, and more than 200,000 children take up smoking every year in the UK. As Sir Cyril says, if we can reduce that figure by even 2%, that is 4,000 fewer children taking up smoking every year. For that reason, we strongly welcome the confirmation in Sir Cyril’s review of what public health experts have been arguing for some time—namely, that standardised packaging makes cigarettes less attractive to young people and could help save lives.
Sir Cyril's remit was to consider whether standardised packaging would lead to a decrease in tobacco consumption. Does the Minister not accept his clear conclusion that,
“standardised packaging would serve to reduce the rate of children taking up smoking”,
and that it could lead to,
“an important reduction … on the uptake and prevalence of smoking and … have a positive impact on public health”?
Of course, this is something that all the previous evidence reviews showed. Indeed, Sir Cyril states:
“My overall findings are not dissimilar to those of previous reviews”.
Did not the Government’s own systematic review in 2012, which Sir Cyril describes as “extensive and authoritative”, conclude that standardised packaging is less appealing than branded packaging, that it makes the health warnings more prominent and that it refutes the utter falsehood that some brands are healthier than others?
All the royal colleges and health experts, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the BMA and the campaigning health charities are united on this. The majority of responses to the Government’s own consultation also favoured it. Does the Minister therefore finally accept that there is an overwhelming body of evidence in favour of standardised packaging and that there can be no excuse for further delay?
The House will know that Labour has long called for the immediate introduction of standardised packaging. However, for every step we took in government on smoking and tobacco, the tobacco industry fought us all the way and then took a new approach. As my noble friend Lady Thornton put it when we recently pressed for amendments introducing standardised packaging to be included in the Children and Families Bill,
“we are talking about whether we are prepared to allow the over-powerful and wealthy tobacco companies to gain their next market for the profits they need to make from tobacco products … They can exist only if they continue to recruit young people to tobacco addiction so that they have their next generation of smokers”.—[Official Report, 20/11/13; col. GC 404-05.]
Do the Government not accept that the failure to take action on this issue under the Children and Families Bill was yet another missed opportunity? After Labour banned tobacco advertising, manufacturers developed increasingly sophisticated marketing devices for their packaging. We know that they spend millions every year on design testing to lure in new, young smokers. The question is: why have we had to wait so long for action on standardised packaging? Does the Minister accept the impact that further delay will have? More than 70,000 children will have taken up smoking since the Minister announced the review, and today he announced yet another consultation. The Government have already had a consultation, which reported less than a year ago. What do they expect to change?
At the time of announcing Sir Cyril’s review last November, the Government promised to issue regulations if they could be persuaded by the case made by Sir Cyril. Now they say that they are persuaded that he has made a “compelling case”—so why the further consultation and inevitable delay? Is this another attempt to kick the matter into the long grass, and can we be reassured that there will not be another government U-turn on this issue? How many more children will take up smoking before the Government make a decision and act? Does the Minister not accept that it is the clear will of both Houses of this Parliament to proceed with standardised packaging without further delay?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her welcome of Sir Cyril’s report. I share with her my admiration for the thoroughness with which he tackled a task in a short space of time, considering how much work he had to do.
Sir Cyril has produced a compelling report, and I urge noble Lords to take the opportunity to read it; it is extremely readable, as well as persuasive. As I said, he has made a compelling case on the public health evidence. However, to make robust policy in this area, it is essential that we follow a careful process. I understand the noble Baroness’s impatience to make progress on this issue, and we share that desire. However, we have to look at everything in the round if we are to make policy that is considered and well thought through. We have to give everybody who has a stake in the decision an opportunity to make their case. Therefore, I cannot stand here now and say that the Government will definitely proceed to make regulations. We must now take stock of Sir Cyril’s report and look at it alongside the other, non-health-related issues that need to be considered.
On that issue, we will hold a six-week consultation to ensure that our decision is properly and fully informed by any further relevant views and, very importantly, that it will be capable of withstanding the greatest scrutiny, including in the courts. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to mention the strong potential for matters of this kind to end up in legal action; the Australian Government are already in the courts on this issue. We want to be able to demonstrate to all stakeholders that the process has been fair and thorough and that we have moved at a pace that is reasonably rapid but which at the same time enables us to develop robust policy.
The consultation will include draft regulations for consideration. Far from this being a repeat of the previous consultation, it will enable people to look at the precise proposals that would be contained in regulations, if approved by Parliament. The timing of the consultation will be announced shortly and details provided on the Department of Health website. As to when we will bring in regulations, should the Government make a final decision to go ahead with standardised packaging, we would need to consider the timetable. However, our aim would be to make the regulations before the end of this Parliament. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that, far from kicking the issue into the long grass, as she put it, we have every intention of doing the opposite.
I believe that I have addressed most of the noble Baroness’s questions and points, but I shall write to her if there is something I have missed out.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I strongly welcome Sir Cyril’s report, which is an extremely thorough piece of work. The central message from it is crystal clear and compelling; the introduction of standardised packaging would reduce the number of children and young people taking up smoking. I look forward to reading the draft regulations and the consultation, which I hope will be short. I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that he talked about six weeks. Does he agree that, if the Government introduce this, we are going very much with the grain of public opinion? A new poll, issued today by YouGov, found that 64% of adults in Great Britain support or strongly support plain, standardised packaging, with only 11% opposed to the measure.
Earl Howe
I am very grateful to my noble friend. I confirm that we intend to have a consultation period of six weeks. That is as long as we think it needs to be to enable everyone with an interest, both for and against this measure, to make their views known and to enable us to factor in any considerations we may not yet have had an opportunity to consider. Although I have not seen the YouGov report to which my noble friend refers, I suspect she is absolutely right that public opinion is moving in the direction that Sir Cyril has advocated, and that we are going with the grain of what most people think. Most right-thinking people want children to be protected from the harms of tobacco. I hope that we will have public opinion behind us, should we decide to go ahead with this.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I strongly welcome this report. It is an extremely readable, clearly laid out and very balanced review. I remind the House that it is 60 years since the original Doll and Peto observations that tobacco was linked to an early death. Their follow-up study, 50 years on, showed that those men who smoked only cigarettes and continued smoking had a life expectancy 10 years shorter than non-smokers. There is a long history behind this.
Looking at standardised packaging, it is worth noting that, as this report has highlighted,
“the pack has become the main promotional platform for the tobacco industry to recruit and retain customers”.
As has been said, the evidence from Australia is that plain packaging gives the impression that the cigarettes are lower in quality and less satisfying than those in the previously marketed packaging.
I would like to ask the Minister about standardised packaging, which comes from having listened to the debate in the other place after the ministerial Statement. I am concerned that there may be scaremongering going on over jobs. This type of standardised packaging is complex packaging and anti-counterfeit measures require complex design and printing techniques which this country is extremely good at. Our printing and packaging industry probably is one of the world leaders in developing really good types of packaging where anti-counterfeit measures can be included.
It is of concern that the term “plain” is still being used, which is completely different from complex standardised packaging. HMRC inspectors are clear that they can detect counterfeit standardised packaging more easily than the current commercial types of packaging when those are counterfeited. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the regulations will include the inability for the tobacco industry to do what is being done in Australia. One or two extra cigarettes are included as a loss leader for the same price as a packet of 20 as a promotional activity to make the packet more attractive. I also seek reassurance that the standardised packaging will be standardised on the outside; that there will be a standardised number of cigarettes inside; and that there will not be the ability to include tempting extra gifts, whether that is cigarettes or anything else. Does the Minister have any idea when the six-week consultation that he outlined will start and when the completion date is likely to be?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness has raised a number of important points. As regards the effect on jobs, this is exactly the sort of question that we want people to address when responding to the consultation. If there are legitimate concerns about jobs, we want to hear about them. We want to understand exactly what the concerns consist of and whether they are robustly supported by evidence. The noble Baroness drew attention to the word “standardised” and asked me whether by that term we intended it as an antithesis to the word “complex”. I would rather say that standardised is the opposite of branded because it is the branding that is in focus here. As she will have seen from Sir Cyril’s report, he makes some very powerful points about the effect of branding. He said that,
“industry documents show that tobacco packaging has for decades been designed, in the light of market research, with regard to what appeals to target groups. Branded cigarettes are ‘badge’ products, frequently on display, which therefore act as a ‘silent salesman.’ Tobacco packages appear to be especially important as a means of communicating brand imagery in countries like Australia and the UK which have comprehensive bans on advertising and promotion”.
The word “standardised” is intended to signify a commonality of rather bland packaging, subject of course to European Union rules. I am sure that the noble Baroness is aware that the draft tobacco directive makes provision for a number of features to be included in the packaging; for example, 65% of the surface area of a packet of cigarettes will need to comprise of warnings. The minimum size of a packet of cigarettes will go up to 20 cigarettes and packets of 10 will be illegal. Other provisions are designed to prevent tobacco companies from using their packaging in whatever way to entice people to smoke, which includes free gifts and other features.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Before the noble Earl sits down, may I remind him that I asked about the timescale?
Earl Howe
I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon. It is a little early for me to be specific on that. I have been as specific as I can on the timescale in which we hope to introduce regulations, but I will need to come back to the noble Baroness on the timescale for their implementation.
Baroness Wall of New Barnet (Lab)
My Lords, I want to briefly add my congratulations on and support for the report, and to associate myself with the frustration that I think my noble friend on the Front Bench has portrayed. Many other people, including clinicians in my own hospital, are already seeing the effects of smoking on children as young as 11, which is very worrying.
I should like the noble Earl to think about two things. First, has the breadth and depth of the consultation been different from and wider than the previous consultation, which was not very long ago? Secondly, the noble Earl made a comment along the lines that we must make sure that we do not end up in litigation because we want to ensure the fairness of this. I must advise the noble Earl that consultation will never be strong enough to prevent litigation. We must do all we can to consult everybody, but we shall be waiting for ever if we wait for something that will prevent people pursuing litigation when they really do not want these things to happen. I am sure the noble Earl is aware of this, but please let this consultation not be so exhaustive that we include everything that will stop the courts taking up some of the issues.
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness makes a good point about litigation. My response is that if it comes to litigation, and of course we hope it will not, we will have the strongest possible defence against any accusation that we have somehow skimped or not taken account of evidence. In defence of the Government, I also point to the other measures we are taking to bear down upon the prevalence of smoking. The noble Baroness knows very well that we have had some excellent debates on smoking in cars, proxy purchasing of tobacco, and prohibiting the sale of electronic cigarettes to under-18s. I hope the good faith of the Government is not in doubt here and I share her wish to see progress made as swiftly as possible.
On the subject of the timetable, I did not make clear that while we believe that we have sufficient time to allow regulations to be introduced within this Parliament, we shall move to give both Houses our final decision on whether we are going ahead with this before the Summer Recess.